Final count from the 2024 Tournament:

ACC: 17 (5 bids, 12 wins)
SEC: 16 (8 bids, 8 wins)
B1G: 15 (6 bids, 9 wins)
B12: 15 (8 bids, 7 wins)
BE: 11 (3 bids, 8 wins)
P12: 10 (4 bids, 6 wins)
MWC: 10 (6 bids, 4 wins)
A10: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)
WCC: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)

The success of the ACC and Big East certainly despite limited bids suggests that the Tournament Committee did a poor job evaluating those conferences. As the Committee relies heavily on metrics such as the NET Rankings, these metrics may not be adequately capturing the quality of these conferences.

One element may be the 20 game conference schedule used by both the ACC and Big East. The SEC and B12, which each garnered 8 bids, play 18 game conference schedules. The MWC, which received 6 bids, also plays 18 conference games. The Big Ten and Pac 12, both of which play 20 conference games, had a large number of wins in the tournament relative to the number of bids received. OOC games are critical to the comparison of the relative strength of conferences. Without understanding how it works, the NET Ranking formula may favor playing a larger number of OOC games.

This is the third consecutive year with a low number of bids for the ACC. Then actual tournament results make it seem that the selection committee has a bias…the ACC is consistently over-performing during the tournament.

Something needs to change. Lowering the games in the conference schedule is one-thing that the ACC controls.

(04-01-2024 12:56 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  This is the third consecutive year with a low number of bids for the ACC. Then actual tournament results make it seem that the selection committee has a bias…the ACC is consistently over-performing during the tournament.

Something needs to change. Lowering the games in the conference schedule is one-thing that the ACC controls.

Agreed with 18, but the devil in the details seems to be in the sub 150 ooc games against scrubs.

Using Warren Nolen as a source, your scrubs rated 27 spots worse in Net than RPI. Pitt's rated 21 spots less. State's were 10 less.

The common denominator seems to be a statistical bias against NE Basketball programs and HCBU's that I can't tease out. Scrubs, should be scrubs all over but something is skewing them. The other point I would make is to not sign a contract to bring in a schools below 275 for ANY reason other than the cancellation of a game.

In NC State's case we are a scheduling around 40 hockey games, and if we use Reynolds more than once, the Hockey Arena folks go crazy because they miss on the money. The attempt to schedule away from football bowl games is also a problem.

It's going to take a return to small tournaments to fix some of this. A San Francisco classic for example with Stanford and Cal as hosts. A MSG/Boston Garden 4 school gig. The old North South double header.

It's simple, Google loves to run up the score against the little guy so their formula favors that.

(04-01-2024 09:11 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Final count from the 2024 Tournament:

ACC: 17 (5 bids, 12 wins)
SEC: 16 (8 bids, 8 wins)
B1G: 15 (6 bids, 9 wins)
B12: 15 (8 bids, 7 wins)
BE: 11 (3 bids, 8 wins)
P12: 10 (4 bids, 6 wins)
MWC: 10 (6 bids, 4 wins)
A10: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)
WCC: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)

The success of the ACC and Big East certainly despite limited bids suggests that the Tournament Committee did a poor job evaluating those conferences. As the Committee relies heavily on metrics such as the NET Rankings, these metrics may not be adequately capturing the quality of these conferences.

One element may be the 20 game conference schedule used by both the ACC and Big East. The SEC and B12, which each garnered 8 bids, play 18 game conference schedules. The MWC, which received 6 bids, also plays 18 conference games. The Big Ten and Pac 12, both of which play 20 conference games, had a large number of wins in the tournament relative to the number of bids received. OOC games are critical to the comparison of the relative strength of conferences. Without understanding how it works, the NET Ranking formula may favor playing a larger number of OOC games.

How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

(04-01-2024 03:49 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 09:11 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Final count from the 2024 Tournament:

ACC: 17 (5 bids, 12 wins)
SEC: 16 (8 bids, 8 wins)
B1G: 15 (6 bids, 9 wins)
B12: 15 (8 bids, 7 wins)
BE: 11 (3 bids, 8 wins)
P12: 10 (4 bids, 6 wins)
MWC: 10 (6 bids, 4 wins)
A10: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)
WCC: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)

The success of the ACC and Big East certainly despite limited bids suggests that the Tournament Committee did a poor job evaluating those conferences. As the Committee relies heavily on metrics such as the NET Rankings, these metrics may not be adequately capturing the quality of these conferences.

One element may be the 20 game conference schedule used by both the ACC and Big East. The SEC and B12, which each garnered 8 bids, play 18 game conference schedules. The MWC, which received 6 bids, also plays 18 conference games. The Big Ten and Pac 12, both of which play 20 conference games, had a large number of wins in the tournament relative to the number of bids received. OOC games are critical to the comparison of the relative strength of conferences. Without understanding how it works, the NET Ranking formula may favor playing a larger number of OOC games.

How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

No. Winning FF game doesn’t result in more units. The unit counts are now final for the 2024 tournament.

The NCAA Tournament is like a Federal Program - it claims to do one thing, but in reality has much wider aims including a social-activist aim. Winning money for the winning schools was a gauche consideration at the time this contract came together and something only some of the conferences would mention out loud. Now that the NCAA is the funding source for the NCAA, and a prime funding source for non Division 1 football programs it's more like food stamps. Food stamps on their face are to allow poor people to eat, but the food stamp money goes to the grocery store, the growers, the vendors through consumption demand - not unlike the Tobacco Price Support Program but operating at a different end of the farm spectrum.

There are a lot of micro econ education folks who can move a supply and demand curve and come up with a reason you should be retaining more money. What's usually missing are people with any macro understanding of the old political economy - the science of who get's what and why. The King, The State, The Regulator, The Mobster, only exists and thrives when he is acting to skim off the aggregate market. He makes the most when the people make the most - he just takes a cut. When you mess with the formula you might not just cut down on the cut a small player gets, but you might inadvertently reduce the entire product. If a chunk of players are no longer allowed to play, even while subsidized, it might reduce the value of the play to those who can afford to pay full price.

(04-01-2024 03:49 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

Shares are based on the number of games in which a conference member appears, with the exception of the National Championship Game, which does not count. We know this number since we know which schools are appearing in the National Semifinals. Mathematically, the number of appearances excluding the NCG equals the number of tournament bids plus the number of wins prior to the Final Four.

The formula is a negotiated number and is obviously intended to ensure that lower tier conferences get a minimum share of the Basketball Performance Fund, i.e. Tournament Fund, since every conference receives one automatic bid.

The NCAA distributes revenues through several funds. The Basketball Performance Fund represents about 27% of the total distribution. Others are based on a variety of metrics such as the total number of scholarships offered and the number of NCAA sports sponsored.

(04-02-2024 08:44 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 03:49 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

Shares are based on the number of games in which a conference member appears, with the exception of the National Championship Game, which does not count. We know this number since we know which schools are appearing in the National Semifinals. Mathematically, the number of appearances excluding the NCG equals the number of tournament bids plus the number of wins prior to the Final Four.

The formula is a negotiated number and is obviously intended to ensure that lower tier conferences get a minimum share of the Basketball Performance Fund, i.e. Tournament Fund, since every conference receives one automatic bid.

The NCAA distributes revenues through several funds. The Basketball Performance Fund represents about 27% of the total distribution. Others are based on a variety of metrics such as the total number of scholarships offered and the number of NCAA sports sponsored.

For a basic understanding of how the NCAA distributes the revenue from the MBB tournament…
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/fi...onPlan.pdf

My analogy to the NCAA is the United Nations. Both are ungovernable, but essential organizations. While the NCAA raises its revenue from the MBB Tournament (aka power conferences’ teams accomplishments), the principal donors to the UN are the G7 countries (aka rich & powerful nations). How the money is spent by both the NCAA and UN is extremely confounding…except that all members agreed to the mechanism.

(04-02-2024 01:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 08:44 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 03:49 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

Shares are based on the number of games in which a conference member appears, with the exception of the National Championship Game, which does not count. We know this number since we know which schools are appearing in the National Semifinals. Mathematically, the number of appearances excluding the NCG equals the number of tournament bids plus the number of wins prior to the Final Four.

The formula is a negotiated number and is obviously intended to ensure that lower tier conferences get a minimum share of the Basketball Performance Fund, i.e. Tournament Fund, since every conference receives one automatic bid.

The NCAA distributes revenues through several funds. The Basketball Performance Fund represents about 27% of the total distribution. Others are based on a variety of metrics such as the total number of scholarships offered and the number of NCAA sports sponsored.

For a basic understanding of how the NCAA distributes the revenue from the MBB tournament…
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/fi...onPlan.pdf

My analogy to the NCAA is the United Nations. Both are ungovernable, but essential organizations. While the NCAA raises its revenue from the MBB Tournament (aka power conferences’ teams accomplishments), the principal donors to the UN are the G7 countries (aka rich & powerful nations). How the money is spent by both the NCAA and UN is extremely confounding…except that all members agreed to the mechanism.

Most Americans are unaware that Nixon decided to make almost all farmers de facto government employees. He personally knew what it meant to be hungry from his childhood. He did it using a complicated system that obfuscated what was actually happening and the result was 50 years of stable food prices and a surplus that could be used for American Foreign Policy aims. That's why I liken the NCAA tournament to US Ag Department and annual FARM Bill. It works best when those at the top keep their mouths shut and accept that they are prevented from maximizing their personal profit in return for a redistribution that maintains the social order.

When you cover it too well, the greedy forget why they are not getting their "full share". If you get your own full share, you might be unable to use it in a chaotic world. The greedy see the "friction" and the "skim" but only see the cost of those things, never the benefit and they assume that the risk of ending the friction or the skim is worth the risk.

Many things are like a Cow. You can milk the cow many times, but you can butcher her just once then no more Cow.


There is an overall socio-economic-cultural world view at play with realignment that is being expressed in other elements of our society. You see it with politics, religion, etc.
It involves how people see themselves as individuals within groups, who they think should control the economy, and what justice and fair play is. It's like a 4-5 item slot machine that had been paying up but is close to 5 individual only pop ups where upon that combination delivers a lethal shock to the player.

The Duke-NCSU game drew a HUGE audience.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/04...rs-easter/

(04-01-2024 07:44 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 03:49 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(04-01-2024 09:11 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Final count from the 2024 Tournament:

ACC: 17 (5 bids, 12 wins)
SEC: 16 (8 bids, 8 wins)
B1G: 15 (6 bids, 9 wins)
B12: 15 (8 bids, 7 wins)
BE: 11 (3 bids, 8 wins)
P12: 10 (4 bids, 6 wins)
MWC: 10 (6 bids, 4 wins)
A10: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)
WCC: 4 (2 bids, 2 wins)

The success of the ACC and Big East certainly despite limited bids suggests that the Tournament Committee did a poor job evaluating those conferences. As the Committee relies heavily on metrics such as the NET Rankings, these metrics may not be adequately capturing the quality of these conferences.

One element may be the 20 game conference schedule used by both the ACC and Big East. The SEC and B12, which each garnered 8 bids, play 18 game conference schedules. The MWC, which received 6 bids, also plays 18 conference games. The Big Ten and Pac 12, both of which play 20 conference games, had a large number of wins in the tournament relative to the number of bids received. OOC games are critical to the comparison of the relative strength of conferences. Without understanding how it works, the NET Ranking formula may favor playing a larger number of OOC games.

How can you say this is the final count? Won't the winners of the national semi-final games receive an additional share?

BTW, the whole shares business is crazy. You get one share for playing a first round game and one share for playing in the national championship game. That's nuts since there's probably 10-20 times as many people watching the national championship games as watching a first round game.

No. Winning FF game doesn’t result in more units. The unit counts are now final for the 2024 tournament.

Which means that a total of 132 units are earned: 68 for the participants, and 64 for the number of tournament wins needed to reach the Final Four (68 minus 4).

(04-03-2024 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  Which means that a total of 132 units are earned: 68 for the participants, and 64 for the number of tournament wins needed to reach the Final Four (68 minus 4).

Correct

Here's a little history for new comers.

Some of you of course know that before the ACC, there was the Southern Conference and that from 1933-1953 the ACC was the Southern Conference until the split. You may also know that until about 1950 the NIT was the more prestigious post season tournament. Here's how the SoCon/ACC schools fare in those and until the NCAA finally expanded to 64:

Measuring Elite 8's (as opposed to just bids)

1. UNC 41, 46, 56, 67, 68, 69, 72, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85. Dean Smith got his nickname "Choking Dean Smith" because of games lost at the end of the year in 77, 81 and 83. The Four Corners was a tactic that worked well against inferior opponents, less so against the best athletes. Smith would have them take his foot off the gas with about 8-9 minutes to play and the rest was usually history.
2. NC State 47, 48, and 49 NIT to the point that it became an issue in the SoCon. State actually played both tournaments one year. NCAA 50, 51, 73. 74, 83, and 85.
3. Duke 63, 64, 66, 78, and 80. People like to pretend that K came out of nowhere when the truth is that Duke basketball has not been worse than 3rd in the league for the last 90 years.
4. UVa 81, 83, and 84
5. WF 39, 62, 84 - the above is a lot to get past if your are WF
6. GT 85
7. MD - Screwed and tattoed with the nations second best team in 72, 73, 74, and 75 but could not get past David Thompson at State or Bobby Jones, then Phil Ford at UNC.
8. USC - NC State stole their 1970 National Title in the ACC Title Game that year.

Based on these historic patterns, yet knowing all situations are somewhat unique. UConn better hope Purdue wins on Saturday. UConn can beat Purdue's brains out. State is historically difficult to beat in a championship game of any kind no matter how favored the other team is.

How do these units breakdown for ACC schools this season?

In other words, did those schools who actually earned credits get a bigger share, and if so, how much?

(04-03-2024 03:38 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  How do these units breakdown for ACC schools this season?

In other words, did those schools who actually earned credits get a bigger share, and if so, how much?

You get paid if you stink or not. The same stink or not.

Duke and UNC get paid for basketball the same as BC

This explains it well:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college...234669771/

MARCH MADNESS DAILY: ACC, BIG TEN EARN $36.4 MILLION FROM TOURNEY
BY
EBEN NOVY-WILLIAMS, EMILY CARON
MARCH 28, 2022 10:31AM
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Linkedin
• Print
• + additional share options added

The ACC and Big Ten both earned 18 units in the 2022 men's basketball tournament, which will pay about $36.4 million over the next six years.AP PHOTO/MARCIO JOSE SANCHEZ
The Atlantic Coast Conference’s strong performance in this year’s March Madness will put roughly $36.4 million in the conference’s coffers over the next six years.
The ACC qualified five teams in the tournament and two of them—Duke and UNC—are among the four remaining.

The NCAA distributes money to conferences annually based on how many March Madness games its members play before the final. Thanks to the two North Carolina rivals, ACC teams will play 18 of those games, which translates to roughly $36.4 million paid out to the ACC in installments through 2028.

The Big Ten will pull in the same, showing there are two ways to earn major money from the NCAA tournament. You can have teams advance deep into the field, as in the ACC’s case, or you can have a large number of your teams qualify for the tournament at the start, like the Big Ten did. The Big Ten had nine teams in the tournament, though none made it past the Sweet Sixteen.

The Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference is another big winner. It’s been a decade since the MAAC played more than one game in the tournament, and Saint Peter’s played four this year.

The NCAA has a complex way of rewarding teams for their tournament performance. In overly simplistic terms, a team earns one “unit” for each game it plays during March Madness, minus the championship, and those units deliver payments to the team’s conference for the next six years. The exact value of a win in 2022 won’t be set until 2028, but by looking at the NCAA’s revenue guidance, Sportico calculates each win this year to be worth about $2.02 million.

Because there’s no payout for the championship game, the units are now fully set for this year’s tournament. The Big 12 will have the third highest haul (17 units, about $34.3 million), followed by the Big East (13 units, $26.3 million) and the SEC (11 units, $22.2 million). The Pac-12, last year’s surprise unit winner, finished sixth (seven units, $14.1 million).

The NCAA encourages conferences to split the money evenly among its members, and while most do, some do more to reward the specific schools that earn those payouts. Gonzaga, for example, which has earned 18 units for the WAC in the last six years (wins eventually worth eight figures), had enough leverage recently to change the way the conference divvies up its unit money, giving more to the schools that earn them.

Will Saint Peter’s see more than 1/11th of the roughly $8.1 million the school earned for the MAAC? It’s unclear. Peacocks AD Rachelle Paul told ESPN that she’d like to see a larger cut, and a conference representative didn’t respond to an inquiry about the league’s plan. It’s worth noting that all of the conference’s other units from the past six years (five in total), were earned by Iona.
Payments for this year’s tournament won’t start until 2023, when Sportico calculates that each unit will be worth about $340,000. They won’t end until 2028, when Sportico estimates that each unit will be worth about $317,000 (that number is lower because the canceled 2020 event altered the calculations for the ensuing six years).
These unit payouts represent a large chunk of how the NCAA distributes money to its schools. The Indianapolis-based governing body says it will distribute $625.5 million to members in 2022, and the unit payouts represent $223.7 million of that, or 36% of the total.


Of note: These payouts exist only on the men’s side. The NCAA has no payout or compensation system for schools based on their success in the women’s tournament.

The legitimate gripe that UNC and Duke have in the face of Clemson's and FSU's complaint is that the NCAA has hijacked the value of the NCAA tournament to the tune of about stealing 75% of its value. If the basketball tournament worked and distributed anything like football, units would be three times their value. So that would make last year's take about $110 M instead of $37 M. Put another way, the NCAA format and payments screw the ACC out of about $40-70M a year. Split 15 ways that's about $2.7 to $5 m per year, per school. It's the NCAA that drives the 80/20 split in the two sports instead of a more natural 70/30.