Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
Author Message
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #41
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-20-2018 10:45 PM)ArQ Wrote:  
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

I like the modification of the current format. Eight 16 seeds and eight last-at-large-in play on Tuesday and Wednesday. If NCAA let 15-18 seeds play on Tuesday and Wednesday, very few people will watch these games.

Very few people are watching the First Four as it is now. It gets fewer viewers than most of the earliest pre-Christmas bowl games.

At any rate, the ACC proposal has no chance. CBS/Turner are already paying too much, and they don't want to pay more for 4 more Tuesday/Wednesday games. Also, March Madness ratings were down this year, so even an often-clueless organization like the NCAA must know that it would be a really bad time to ask for more money.
05-21-2018 02:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #42
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
I don’t really love the idea of expanding the tournament further and certainly hate these everyone-gets-a-trophy 96 team proposals. However, 72 teams does provide an element of symmetry where every region would have a play-in game between the two lowest seeds outright and the two lowest seeded at-large teams. This is assuming that the mix of teams in the second First Four would mirror the current First Four. On that basis, there is some measure of equity of the 72-team format where every region is “equal” in having the same number of play-in participants (which isn’t the case today).

Plus, why wouldn’t the networks pay for additional games? We’ve got a bunch of posters here that are convinced that G5 conferences are going to get a significant TV rights pay bump, yet simultaneously don’t believe that a fully fleshed out week of NCAA Tournament games (not just the current First Four appendage) is worth more in the marketplace? That makes no sense. Turner would be happy to take more games.
(This post was last modified: 05-21-2018 08:25 AM by Frank the Tank.)
05-21-2018 08:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #43
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-20-2018 06:52 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(05-20-2018 01:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agreed, there was never a good reason to expand beyond 64.

Heck, 48 was from a competitive view better than 64, 64's only advantage was the mathematical symmetry.

Wasn't it due to the MWC earning an auto bid? They didn't want to lose another at-large bid?

Capping leagues at 5 might be fine for the bottom 27 or so conferences...but really unfair for leagues like the ACC. They actually have had teams make the F4 that finished outside the Top 5.

Agreed. There shouldn’t be a cap at all. If 15 ACC teams are all within the best number of at-large teams available, then they should all be in the tourbament field.

I know that we have a lot of midmajor sympathy on this board, but if they want to get better non-conference games, then they need to do what Gonzaga did back in the early-2000s and play anywhere at anytime. They played on the road without return home games from power conference teams for years and built their reputation to where they now can get power teams to come to their place. That wasn’t just gifted to them, though. Most of the complaints from smaller conferences is that power teams won’t play them anywhere but at power conference arenas, to which the response is, “Too bad, so sad.” If midmajor teams want those power conference games, then they need to take them on the road or don’t complain. If you start having competitive value on the level of Gonzaga, then you have the leverage to start asking for more home games.

I like Illinois State and thought they deserved to be in the tournament last year, but complaining that power teams won’t come to Bloomington doesn’t and shouldn’t garner a single shred of sympathy. Plenty of power teams will play them if the Redbirds would go on the road without a return home game and even get paid for it. If they don’t want to take that opportunity, then the NCAA Tournament selection committee shouldn’t cut them a break on scheduling.
05-21-2018 08:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #44
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
last 5 years here's the teams that would have gotten in with 72...

2018
St Mary's
USC
Notre Dame
Baylor

2017
Syracuse
Illinois St
Iowa
Cal

2016
St Bonaventure
South Carolina
Monmouth
Valparaiso

2015
Old Dominion
Richmond
Temple
Colorado St

2014
SMU
St John's
Florida St
Minnesota
05-21-2018 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #45
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-21-2018 08:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 5 years here's the teams that would have gotten in with 72...

2018
St Mary's
USC
Notre Dame
Baylor

2017
Syracuse
Illinois St
Iowa
Cal

2016
St Bonaventure
South Carolina
Monmouth
Valparaiso

2015
Old Dominion
Richmond
Temple
Colorado St

2014
SMU
St John's
Florida St
Minnesota

Thanks Stever...so basically about a 50/50 split between the P6 and the Rest. The AAC (just outside the P6 would really benefit) in this scenario.
05-22-2018 05:51 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Online
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #46
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
looking at NIT 2 seeds last 5 years- in a 72 team tourney, these would be 1st 4 out....

2018
Utah
Oklahoma St
Louisville
Marquette

2017
Georgia
Illinois
Houston
Clemson

2016
BYU
San Diego St
St Mary's
Florida

2015
Tulsa
Miami
Texas A&M
Stanford

2014
Cal
Illinois
Georgia
Missouri

looks like of those 20 teams- all but BYU, San Diego St, and St Mary's are from the top 7 conferences.
of the what would be last 4 teams in- the 1 seeds- 12/20 teams that would be in are from top 7 conferences.

So of the top 40 teams that would now have a chance- 29/40 are from top 7 conferences(and 25/40 are top 6).
05-22-2018 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #47
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.
05-22-2018 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,035
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 236
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #48
72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.


Then maybe the 12 seed should place higher in their league. IMO any conference champion should not be at Dayton.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
05-22-2018 11:21 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: #49
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-21-2018 08:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 5 years here's the teams that would have gotten in with 72...

2018
St Mary's
USC
Notre Dame
Baylor

2017
Syracuse
Illinois St
Iowa
Cal

2016
St Bonaventure
South Carolina
Monmouth
Valparaiso

2015
Old Dominion
Richmond
Temple
Colorado St

2014
SMU
St John's
Florida St
Minnesota

I think the last two years (2017 and 2018) and 2014 are more reflective of what we can expect going forward, which is 3 from the same 6 conferences that have averaged 37.5 entries from their 75 teams the last 4 years. But if you take the full 5 years then they will get 2 more on average. I notice the same 6 mid-major conferences which get what at-large bids are leftover make up 9 of the 10 other first four out (the bottom 20 conferences have 1 of the 20 first out).

This fundamentally doesn't change anything, and should add 3-4 credits to the top 6 conferences and 2-3 to the top 6 mid-major conferences (I am figuring 1 winner credit per 2 additional entries).

The one thing I don't like is the monopoly the bottom conferences have on the play-ins. Why should the AEC, MEAC and SWAC get those 50-50 chance at a extra winner's credit "first 8" game, while strong lower mid-major conferences like the Summit, WAC, CAA, Ivy, SBC, MAC and CUSA be excluded from such a play-in game. (Financially and recognition to get an extra game). The lower mid-majors all finish their tourneys early, so playing on a Tuesday or Wednesday is no problem. I just think the 4 lower mid-major conference play-ins should be distributed across the lower seeds, a 16th seed game, a 15th seed, a 14th seed and a 13th seed.
05-22-2018 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #50
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.
05-23-2018 12:39 AM
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: #51
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.

Not going to do that. The Tuesday and Wednesday games are on TV, generate revenue, and the 6 top conferences get shares for winning those games, which they will not give up, no way no how.

That is why I think the logical reform is one game for each of the lower 20 single bid conferences by random draw, so seed 5 teams at 13, 14, 15, and 16, with one play-in game each. That would give all 20 conferences the same shot at an extra credit or a 40% shot to play in the first 8 game.
05-23-2018 12:47 AM
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: #52
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.

A second way to correct it, have the first 8 all be at-large, and then no extra money is distributed to those bottom 20 conferences. The Play-ins would then most likely all be 11 and 10 seeds. This would effectively keep all the Tuesday and Wednesday money in the top conferences. It would also make the first 8 more compelling, as both games at a venue would be solid.
05-23-2018 01:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #53
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 01:03 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.

A second way to correct it, have the first 8 all be at-large, and then no extra money is distributed to those bottom 20 conferences. The Play-ins would then most likely all be 11 and 10 seeds. This would effectively keep all the Tuesday and Wednesday money in the top conferences. It would also make the first 8 more compelling, as both games at a venue would be solid.

I'm not buying the argument that any team that wins any conference tournament is automatically more deserving of the chance to skip the "First Four" games. The 6th place team from the 31st best conference is more "deserving" than the at-large teams? No friggin' way.

How about this, if you want to do a favor to even the weakest D-I conferences: Guarantee that any autobid team that won its conference's regular season doesn't have to play in the First Four or First Eight or whatever it would be.
05-23-2018 01:41 AM
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: #54
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 01:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 01:03 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  
(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.

A second way to correct it, have the first 8 all be at-large, and then no extra money is distributed to those bottom 20 conferences. The Play-ins would then most likely all be 11 and 10 seeds. This would effectively keep all the Tuesday and Wednesday money in the top conferences. It would also make the first 8 more compelling, as both games at a venue would be solid.

I'm not buying the argument that any team that wins any conference tournament is automatically more deserving of the chance to skip the "First Four" games. The 6th place team from the 31st best conference is more "deserving" than the at-large teams? No friggin' way.

How about this, if you want to do a favor to even the weakest D-I conferences: Guarantee that any autobid team that won its conference's regular season doesn't have to play in the First Four or First Eight or whatever it would be.

Then go with my first proposal. 4 play-ins for conference winners, 2 from each of the lowest 4 seed levels (13-16) play in, with a random draw. This way the chances are evenly distributed: SBC, Summit, Horizon, WAC, MAC, Patriot, Ivy, OVC, ASUN, MAAC, SWAC, MEAC, Big Sky, Big West, Big South, SoCon, NEC, AEC, SLC, CAA each have an equal chance at a first 8 game (Note: assumes top six seeded mid-major autobids are WCC, A10, MWC, American, MVC, CUSA although one could slip in the bottom 20 in any given year). Each of the bottom 20 has a 40% chance of being randomly chosen to get a play-in. You could put a rule that a conference with 2 appearances in the first 8 over the prior 4 seasons is exempt until the 5th season from being drawn again.

It's not to difficult. You just sort the lowest 20 autobid schools in four ranking buckets of 5 schools and draw 2 of those 5 for a play-in. One year 16s will be East, 15s South, 14s West, 13s Midwest, or however they break it up.

This would remove the bonus for being dreadful, by putting all perennial one bid conferences in the same boat.
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2018 07:08 PM by Stugray2.)
05-23-2018 02:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
indianasniff Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,818
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #55
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
ACC just wants their whole league in the tourney.
05-23-2018 07:35 AM
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: #56
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
This would all go away if Division I were limited to only schools that belong at that level of competition. As long as the NCAA allows virtually any school to claim a guaranteed pot of money that is more than it costs them to join the top division, this problem will only get worse.

The NCAA needs to remove the financial incentive for schools to compete at the wrong level. I expect if they don't do it themselves, the P6 will do it for them one way or another.
05-23-2018 08:13 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: #57
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-21-2018 08:38 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(05-20-2018 06:52 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(05-20-2018 01:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-17-2018 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-17-2018 02:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO, if they're going to have 72 teams, the committee should seed the entire tournament 1-72 and have teams 57-72 play in the First Four games, or First Eight games or whatever they'd call them. Have the Dayton winners feed into the regional sites that are farther east, and have the winners from the other site (Las Vegas?) move on to regional sites in or closer to the west.

Yes to the shorter shot clock after offensive rebounds, definitely.

IMO, they should cut it back to 64 and say God Bless the NIT. The field is way too diluted already. They should also cap the # of schools any conference can get into the field of 64. I'm thinking 5.

Agreed, there was never a good reason to expand beyond 64.

Heck, 48 was from a competitive view better than 64, 64's only advantage was the mathematical symmetry.

Wasn't it due to the MWC earning an auto bid? They didn't want to lose another at-large bid?

Capping leagues at 5 might be fine for the bottom 27 or so conferences...but really unfair for leagues like the ACC. They actually have had teams make the F4 that finished outside the Top 5.

Agreed. There shouldn’t be a cap at all. If 15 ACC teams are all within the best number of at-large teams available, then they should all be in the tourbament field.

I know that we have a lot of midmajor sympathy on this board, but if they want to get better non-conference games, then they need to do what Gonzaga did back in the early-2000s and play anywhere at anytime. They played on the road without return home games from power conference teams for years and built their reputation to where they now can get power teams to come to their place. That wasn’t just gifted to them, though. Most of the complaints from smaller conferences is that power teams won’t play them anywhere but at power conference arenas, to which the response is, “Too bad, so sad.” If midmajor teams want those power conference games, then they need to take them on the road or don’t complain. If you start having competitive value on the level of Gonzaga, then you have the leverage to start asking for more home games.

I like Illinois State and thought they deserved to be in the tournament last year, but complaining that power teams won’t come to Bloomington doesn’t and shouldn’t garner a single shred of sympathy. Plenty of power teams will play them if the Redbirds would go on the road without a return home game and even get paid for it. If they don’t want to take that opportunity, then the NCAA Tournament selection committee shouldn’t cut them a break on scheduling.

I don't agree at all. Teams have a chance to finish in the top half in their conference in the regular season. Then they have a chance in their conference tournament. If they can't do well in either, then they've proven that at least half the teams in the conference are better. And determining who the "best" teams are is very subjective. From the frequent wins of 12 and 13 seeds its obvious the committee repeatedly under-seeds teams from the less prominent conferences.


Knowing how to win is a real thing. If you manage to finish in the bottom half of your conference, barring an injury that made it a fluke, you don't know how to win and shouldn't be in the tournament, regardless of how much talent you have.
05-23-2018 08:21 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: #58
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 08:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  This would all go away if Division I were limited to only schools that belong at that level of competition. As long as the NCAA allows virtually any school to claim a guaranteed pot of money that is more than it costs them to join the top division, this problem will only get worse.

The NCAA needs to remove the financial incentive for schools to compete at the wrong level. I expect if they don't do it themselves, the P6 will do it for them one way or another.

They're trying to make it more expensive to compete.
05-23-2018 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #59
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-22-2018 11:21 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.


Then maybe the 12 seed should place higher in their league. IMO any conference champion should not be at Dayton.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you completely missed the point.
SW Tech wins the ABC conference and gets a 12 seed into the field of 64. They lose to the five seed in the first round. SW Tech and the ABC receive one until.

NE Tech wins the XYZ conference and is one of the extra 16s. They go to Dayton and face another 16 and win then move into the field of 64 to face and one seed and lose. NE Tech and XYZ get paid TWO UNITS.
05-24-2018 12:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #60
RE: 72 Team NCAA, 20 sec clock on Offensive Rebounds?
(05-23-2018 12:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-22-2018 11:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't like the 16/16 matchups because it actually rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the NCAA Tournament. If you win the 16/16 game you earn two units, while a pretty decent 12 seed from a single bid league has to pull an upset to earn two units.

It's the NCAA who rewards a conference for sending a bad team to the tournament. They are pandering to the 16-seed conferences by giving them 2 units for winning the 16-16 game.

What they should do is give one unit to every team that is in the tournament but doesn't win a Thursday/Friday game in the first week. Of course, what the NCAA should really do is stop hoarding so much of the March Madness money for itself and give that money to the schools whose teams are in the tournament.

Passing around more units didn't happen without a vote and some debate with the P5 having an opportunity to saber-rattle if they didn't like it.

Diluting the value of a unit to get more teams into the field of 64 was simply seen as a better deal for the P5.

And no, the NCAA does not keep most revenue for itself.

The NCAA serves as a handy piggy bank, need to pay out for litigation costs associated with restrictions the members want? The NCAA piggy bank allows paying without having to alter the university athletic department budget to pay the costs.

Degree completion programs, academic assistance funds, these are all things the presidents want and the easiest way to make sure those things happen is to retain NCAA revenue then tie a string to the disbursement of money. AD has to do the needed things to get the money released and it's the NCAA's mandate not the president, even when the university president is on the presidents council and voted to tie those strings to the money.

The NCAA exists and operates as it does because the P5 presidents like it.
05-24-2018 12:17 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.