NCAA Tourney Selections

[Box and Won]

That POS Digger was trying to say he got Zona in the tournament. Talk about thinking a little too much of yourself. There is a reason why nobody has wanted you to coach their program for years.

I want to kick Digger in the nuts.

[Taj79]

BAB --- what do you mean by the statement "interesting to see what Taj and Billiken Roy have to say about what happened today?" What happened is what always happens ---- someone's bubble bursts. Do I think Creighton, St. Mary's, Penn State and a whole boatload of others should have got in? Yeah --- I guess so. Do I think Arizona and Maryland were deserving? No --- on neither account. But these guys are the Missouri State of a few years ago. There are only, what, 34 at-large bids and only 34 are going to go. Face it, the rich only want the rich to get richer. You have essentially the same thing going on here as you do in football --- and we all know that's the BCS. The power conferences get the show. The lesser wannabees do not.

In football, it is somewhat simpler --- those playing Division 1-AA football know the score. They have their own separate championship. Maybe that's the way this should go. Everyone is already in "March Madness" only its called "Conference Tournament Week." I know Roy has called for more teams being let in, to the extent of all of them, but aren't most of them there already by being in Conference Tournament Week (sans those like Fordham who couldn't get to their own tournament)? In that regard, they are all in and its the one-and-done-go-home syndrome. Of course, the bigger bucks are getting to the actual March Madness but maybe we should lessen the number of teams --- only the conference champion goes --- like the old days with the ACC and all that. Whooo baby -- can you see North Carolina b*tching right now because in that scenario, they stay home and Stephen F. Austin goes?

It happens every year and will continue to be that way ad infinitum. The pot of gold for schools like Morgan State, and Stephen F. Austin, and Cleveland State and Binghamton was realized today. Their season is, for all intents and purposes, over and a success. If they don't win, they don't go and the mid-majors are next.

As for a response to kshoe for my post AC thread, why I make a comment about Dayton being out, well, that's just me. I hate Dayton. They are the worst 25-win team out there. And that is a quote from one of their season ticket holders. They can't shoot --- field goals or free throws. They throw it up and offensive rebound. In the tournament, that will be West Virginia or Syracuse out there, not Duquesne or St. Louis or Fordham. I just don't like them and am not man enough to get over it.

As for the "we should be in the MVC" idea now that they are a Juan Bid league --- someone pointed out that the whole conference thing is cyclical. That will happen again. Right now, the A10 is above the Valley --- the bids don't lie --- but I expect that will run its course and reverse, and reverse again, and again. My stand is that, philosophically, we don't belong with 70% of the schools in that league to begin with. That's the deal.

I watch the selection show for two reasons -- who's playing who and who gets screwed. Those are givens every year.

As for mid-majors and their schedules, I have long compared what happens to Dayton every year and how we had better get used to it. No one comes to the Dayton Arena to play the Flyers except maybe one BCS team every three or four years. The rest either play them at their place or in a neutral court. Meaning the Flyer Faithful get crap as far as out of conference home schedule is concerned. We will be there as well. Mark my words. Boston College will never come to Chaifetz again. A Carolina with a Hansbrough will say Savvis, the dome or take a hike. The only schools that get any headway in those cases are schools with current histories --- Gonzaga, Xavier, maybe Butler.

The big boys don't want to share the pot and they don't want anyone else in the club. Don't be surprised to see a Division 1AA concept arise in the men's basketball arena. A twelfth place finisher in the Big East is going to be more respected that the winner of the Big South, Southland, America East and MEAC any day. The chart on ESPN shows the fade. It will continue.

[Bay Area Billiken]

BAB --- what do you mean by the statement "interesting to see what Taj and Billiken Roy have to say about what happened today?" What happened is what always happens ---- someone's bubble bursts. Do I think Creighton, St. Mary's, Penn State and a whole boatload of others should have got in? Yeah --- I guess so. Do I think Arizona and Maryland were deserving? No --- on neither account. But these guys are the Missouri State of a few years ago. There are only, what, 34 at-large bids and only 34 are going to go. Face it, the rich only want the rich to get richer. You have essentially the same thing going on here as you do in football --- and we all know that's the BCS. The power conferences get the show. The lesser wannabees do not.

In football, it is somewhat simpler --- those playing Division 1-AA football know the score. They have their own separate championship. Maybe that's the way this should go. Everyone is already in "March Madness" only its called "Conference Tournament Week." I know Roy has called for more teams being let in, to the extent of all of them, but aren't most of them there already by being in Conference Tournament Week (sans those like Fordham who couldn't get to their own tournament)? In that regard, they are all in and its the one-and-done-go-home syndrome. Of course, the bigger bucks are getting to the actual March Madness but maybe we should lessen the number of teams --- only the conference champion goes --- like the old days with the ACC and all that. Whooo baby -- can you see North Carolina b*tching right now because in that scenario, they stay home and Stephen F. Austin goes?

It happens every year and will continue to be that way ad infinitum. The pot of gold for schools like Morgan State, and Stephen F. Austin, and Cleveland State and Binghamton was realized today. Their season is, for all intents and purposes, over and a success. If they don't win, they don't go and the mid-majors are next.

As for a response to kshoe for my post AC thread, why I make a comment about Dayton being out, well, that's just me. I hate Dayton. They are the worst 25-win team out there. And that is a quote from one of their season ticket holders. They can't shoot --- field goals or free throws. They throw it up and offensive rebound. In the tournament, that will be West Virginia or Syracuse out there, not Duquesne or St. Louis or Fordham. I just don't like them and am not man enough to get over it.

As for the "we should be in the MVC" idea now that they are a Juan Bid league --- someone pointed out that the whole conference thing is cyclical. That will happen again. Right now, the A10 is above the Valley --- the bids don't lie --- but I expect that will run its course and reverse, and reverse again, and again. My stand is that, philosophically, we don't belong with 70% of the schools in that league to begin with. That's the deal.

I watch the selection show for two reasons -- who's playing who and who gets screwed. Those are givens every year.

As for mid-majors and their schedules, I have long compared what happens to Dayton every year and how we had better get used to it. No one comes to the Dayton Arena to play the Flyers except maybe one BCS team every three or four years. The rest either play them at their place or in a neutral court. Meaning the Flyer Faithful get crap as far as out of conference home schedule is concerned. We will be there as well. Mark my words. Boston College will never come to Chaifetz again. A Carolina with a Hansbrough will say Savvis, the dome or take a hike. The only schools that get any headway in those cases are schools with current histories --- Gonzaga, Xavier, maybe Butler.

The big boys don't want to share the pot and they don't want anyone else in the club. Don't be surprised to see a Division 1AA concept arise in the men's basketball arena. A twelfth place finisher in the Big East is going to be more respected that the winner of the Big South, Southland, America East and MEAC any day. The chart on ESPN shows the fade. It will continue.

Taj,

I know B-Roy and you, like me, are long time observers and my contemporaries on this board. We were at SLU at the same time. So I'm always interested in your opinions, and they are good ones.

A couple of interesting points from my Left Coast perspective: Cal got shipped to Kansas City to play Maryland. Although I didn't think Cal deserved a #7 seed with its RPI of 39, I thought the NCAA did Cal no favor by giving them 10th seed Maryland (even though I didn't think Maryland even deserved a bid). Cal teams, football and basketball, often struggle on Golden Bear rare forays to the other side of the Rocky Mountains. Cal got destroyed by Mizzou in Columbia earlier in the season. And if Cal somehow gets by Maryland in Round 1, Memphis lurks in Round 2.

Also sent to Kansas City was Morgan State, which is coached by former Cal Coach Todd Bozeman ... and former Cal Bear Kately now plays for Morgan State.

Out here we get Illinois, along with Gonzaga and Washington (former SLU Coach Lorenzo Romar) in Portland, and Mizzou and Marquette in Boise. This means Mizzou returns to the scene of the famous Tyus Edney dash. If I were a rich man and didn't have to be concerned about work, I would try to get up there to one or both of those sites. A friend has already called about going to Portland for the games on Thursday.

I think St. Mary's really got the shaft given the totality of the circumstances. St. Mary's hosts Washington State on Tuesday night at 8 p.m Pacific on ESPN2 in the NIT. If St. Mary's wins, the Gaels host the winner of Davidson at South Carolina in Round 2.

Listening to ESPNU as I type, they are saying that based upon the way the Committee (Mike Slive) was talking, they think St. Mary's and Penn State were strongly considered, which I took to mean that they were the last 2 out. Their NCAA bids disappeared when USC and Mississippi State stole automatic bids in the Pac-10 and SEC the last 2 days. I think St. Mary's literally went down in the last minute of today's Miss. State win over Tennessee in a horrible game.

I told my friend that if it was SLU with an RPI of 40 (i.e. Creighton) on Selection Sunday and got snubbed, I'd be tearing down the walls. My friend is from LA and agrees with me that SLU needs to stay in the A-10 and not go to the MVC. The A-10 got 3 bids; the MVC just got one. It's more than just cyclical in both of our opinions out here. My friend said the A-10 is thought of as a good conference, better than the MVC. There's quite a history of snubbery now re the MVC- Mo. State twice, Creighton today.

Also SLU would not dominate the MVC like a Butler in the Horizon or Memphis in C-USA.

We are better off staying put for now in the A-10 and trying to make the best of it.

[Taj79]

BAB -- oh! In that case, thanks, man. Love you too!

[thetorch]

I always get so worked up over this every year. They owe us explanations for how they seed teams, who gets left out, etc. etc. Then I realize it is just basketball and money and just enjoy the games.

It has really leaned toward this the last couple years but this years selections pretty much validate that the RPI is a useless tool and has nothing to do with the selection of teams anymore. I won't be paying attention to it next year.

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

Did we make it into the NCAA tournament? What seed are we?

[slu72]

Did we make it into the NCAA tournament? What seed are we?

To make it totally fair, the NCAA must mandate some form of non con scheduling that treats mid majors fairly. I know that's very idealistic but this is the excuse the committee is making for BCS dominating the bid package. How can you make an impression if the have's won't play the have not's unless it's on their home court. BCS schools will say, "how can we play Fordham in a 2000 seat arena? The revenue won't cover our travel expenses." Ok, have them play in the Garden or some other larger arena. It can be done, but face it BCS schools are a very greedy bunch. Kind of like the Wall Street banking crowd. We don't give one flying frig about Main Street as long as our guys make their fat commissions and bonuses. If this continues, they'll kill this thing and there'll be two divisions in hoops.

[Bay Area Billiken]

To make it totally fair, the NCAA must mandate some form of non con scheduling that treats mid majors fairly. I know that's very idealistic but this is the excuse the committee is making for BCS dominating the bid package. How can you make an impression if the have's won't play the have not's unless it's on their home court. BCS schools will say, "how can we play Fordham in a 2000 seat arena? The revenue won't cover our travel expenses." Ok, have them play in the Garden or some other larger arena. It can be done, but face it BCS schools are a very greedy bunch. Kind of like the Wall Street banking crowd. We don't give one flying frig about Main Street as long as our guys make their fat commissions and bonuses. If this continues, they'll kill this thing and there'll be two divisions in hoops.

There is about as much outrage as you can get in California this morning on Bay Area talk radio. It is raining today here- the talking head on KNBR just said those were tears from heaven for St. Mary's. The outrage here is Arizona in over St. Mary's. It is indefensible. It is a farce, a joke.

Last 10- that doesn't apply to BCS- Arizona lost 5 of its last 6, including a first game exit in the Pac-10 Tournament.

Scheduling- Randy Bennett noted St. Mary's went on the road 8 times.

RPI- doesn't apply to 62 Arizona over 48 St. Mary's.

If a BCS team was 18-1 and ranked 22nd in the country when its best player was injured, and then went 6-4 without him, the injury exemption would apply. Now we know that doesn't apply to a non-BCS team, not to the expense of a BCS school NCAA bid.

The gremlins were Cleveland State winning the Horizon, USC winning the Pac-10, and Miss. State "winning" the SEC in a horrible game. If Arizona was in, which again is a farce in itself, then when USC won the Pac-10, that should have taken Arizona's bid, not St. Mary's.

As others have cited, when what happens yesterday happens, that could be SLU up there some day getting the shaft.

[TheBand]

Vitale and Bilas go at it.

And a clip from Randy Bennet is here

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3983521

[Bay Area Billiken]

Vitale and Bilas go at it.

Arizona?

Just a little more, scheduling- Arizona played 2 non-conferences road games, at Texas A&M and at UNLV, and lost them both.

Arizona (19-13 overall, 9-9 Pac-10, 0-1 Pac-10 Tournament) was 2-9 on the road this year.

Mike Slive's comments run pretty hollow when the facts re Arizona are reviewed.

[cheeseman]

I agree that this is the best argument for staying in the A10 - higher national exposure and connection to the national media as a whole over moving to the MVC or some other mid major conference. 3 bids for the A10 certainly makes it clearly a higher profile conference.

[kshoe]

Bernie nailed it with two of his posts in his blog:

2. HERE’S WHAT THE NCAA SELECTION COMMITTEE NEEDS TO DO: From now on, just wipe out all pretense and allow CBS to fill out the brackets. The NCAA continues to squeeze the so-called mid-majors, doling out fewer at-large invitations. In 2004, 12 mid-majors got in on at-large calls; the total has been shrinking ever since. There were nine such invitations in 2005, eight in 2006, six in 2007, six in 2008, and down to four this season.

Blame it on little George Mason, which carried the flag of the mid-majors all the way to the Final Four in 2006. George Mason knocked off UConn in the Elite Eight, and a teardrop formed on the corner of the CBS eye. That’s because the TV ratings went way down for the Final Four in ‘06, and CBS couldn’t have been pleased. So the mid-majors are disappearing from the NCAA Tournament. CBS wants the big teams, the fans want the big teams, the sponsors like the big teams, and so I don’t know why we continue to poke and prod and analyze and study until our brains begin compacting.

The NCAA Tournament belongs to the power conferences. That’s the reality. Sports columnists, other pundits and mid-major commissioners and coaches get up on the soap box every year to complain about the selections and the system, but no one else cares. The fan nation wants (mostly) to see the brand-name schools, the iconic programs. And CBS wants to deliver the goods. So the selection committee should consist of Jim Nance, Seth Davis, various CBS basketball analysts, the chief of CBS Sports, couple of researchers, and maybe one NCAA rep to stay in the room just to make sure that the network doesn’t eliminate the no-name schools that qualified by winning conference tournaments. I gather that CBS would prefer that the tournament consist of 64 power-conference teams, including all members of the Big East and ACC. That’s where we’re heading, anyway. Hell, bring back ol’ Billy Packer and let him load that bracket up with all of his ACC and Big East favorites and assorted coaching buddies. At least we’d do away with the notion that this process is an actual deliberation, and that every team will be given a fair and impartial inspection.

3. BUT SINCE IT IS A TRADITION TO WHINE ABOUT THE SELECTIONS … Arizona? Are you kidding us? Arizona? Let’s take a look: No. 62 in the RPI, 2-9 on the road in conference play, only 19-13 overall, a 6-10 record against Top 50 teams, 8-12 vs. the Top 100 and five losses in its last six games, including a 32-point rollover before Arizona State in the Pac 10 quarterfinals. Yes, Arizona, which could only beat Oregon (No. 180 RPI) and Oregon State (No. 154 RPI) on the road in conference play. Not only was Arizona asked to participate in the NCAA Tournament, but the Wildcats received a very winnable first-round game against an overseeded Utah team. Thanks very much.

This is the stuff that makes the mid-major folks scream foul. The phonies on the NCAA Selection Committee always tell us that winning on the road is important, and that late-season trends matter, and that it’s a body of work that counts. OK, tell that to Creighton of the Missouri Valley Conference. Body of work: enough to add up to the No. 40 RPI. Success on the road: Creighton was 11-5, including 8-4 in the conference. Late-season: 11 wins in the last 12 games. Sure, Creighton and all mid-majors have a flaw that they can’t realistically overcome, and that’s strength of schedule. That’s because the big boys generally shun them, and won’t even think about meeting a mid-major on the mids’ home court. So the teams like Creighton are crossed off the list because there isn’t enough beef in their schedule — but please explain how can they strengthen the schedule when the big fellas avoid them? This paradox works out nicely for the teams for the BCS conferences: don’t play the Creightons, then accuse Creightons of playing lightweights. And the BCS conferences are basically rewarded for not having the guts to take on the Creightons.

I can even compare this to the activities in Washington D.C. if you like. Here’s what we saw on Sunday: the power-conference heavyweights such as Maryland, Boston College, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan were bailed out, just as some of America’s big financial houses were recently rescued by the U.S. government. The Wall Street teams got a hand up; the Main Street teams like Creighton got the backhand treatment.

Now, let me finish with this: I’m not trying to be a honk for the MVC here; it was a bad season for the Valley. I am just using Creighton as a good example; other mid-majors (San Diego State, St. Mary’s) could have been inserted into the argument. And at least the Atlantic 10 got two at-large bids, so this thing wasn’t entirely a travesty. I suppose it helps to be a mid-major based in the east.

[Cowboy]

-this is one fan that does not want to see just the brand name schools, for me cinderella makes the tourney

-i'd rather see the valpos, richmonds, gmason, gonazaga back in the day (they have outgrown this status imo) beat up on the bcs teams

-i like how the criteria for an at large seems to be a moving target...used to rpi and then the mvc is thought to have figured that out so that is diminished...used to be record in last 10 games and now that gets diminished....now it is "body of work" which can be interpreted any way possible

-part of me would like to see cbs and the bcs blow up this golden goose with the way they are operating

[Bay Area Billiken]

Vitale and Bilas go at it.

And a clip from Randy Bennet is here

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3983521

I just watched the Vitale-Bilas debate, with old Digger chiming in at the end. At this point, after the outrage has become gallows humor, I'm laughing.

Bilas and Phelps were just out here 2 weeks ago. While they were at Cal, did either of them ask Cal why Cal isn't playing St. Mary's, which is a short drive and tunnel away? How about Stanford or UCLA? USC did play in Moraga several years ago, but in the case of Cal, Stanford, and UCLA, I'm asking why they don't play SMC irrespective of the venue. Of course, I know the answer there. (They don't want to get beat, the old everything to lose and nothing to gain argument.)

Just who is St. Mary's supposed to play, or better yet, who will play St. Mary's?

Why doesn't this new "body of work" apply to Arizona? Again, and of course, I know the answer there too. I think Bernie was right on in his blog, except for that part about a "mid-major" in the East getting deference (because the A-10 is not technically a mid-major), just a mere technicality there.

Digger is no friend of non-BCS either. He once got ambushed late in his career with LaPhonso Ellis at USF Memorial Gym after USF restored its program. In the modern era, Digger would not be caught playing SLU in St. Louis; only in South Bend, and even then Digger complained about SLU holding the ball.

I used to respect Jay Bilas. But he has become a refined, GQ version of Billy Packer.

[moytoy12]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Bilas, Digger and Hubie all have different opinions.

[dlarry]

I get it. Its all about the money and thats fine. But I can guarntee you that more people would watch a St. Mary's or Creighton play

a bcs school in the hopes of seeing that upset than people who are going to watch Wisconsin or Arizona.

With the big named bubble schools you know what you are going to get. They may win that first game, but they are going to lose the next one.

When you have mid majors playing you never know, they could be the next GW and go all the way to the final four.

Did the NCAA forget how much hype they put into Stephen Curry's run last year?

Arizona isnt going to do that but St. Marys may have.

[Quality Is Job 1]

The NCAA ought to conduct its own championships, so the idea of allowing CBS to fill out the brackets is unacceptable. However, I think the make-up of the Selection Committee needs to be reexamined. There are too many BCS league representatives and not enough representation for everyone else.

I think what the NCAA ought to do is designate an 11-person committee to determine the field, seedings, and pairings of the NCAA Tournament. The committee should consist of 1 CBS rep, 1 NBA rep, 4 NCAA conference commissioners (2 from BCS conferences, 1 from mid-major conferences, and 1 from low-major conferences), and 5 independent consultants. Those consultants could be from another country or representatives from high-paying NCAA sponsors -- meaning sponsors who officially license products used throughout the entire NCAA, like Champion or Spaulding or whoever.

I think that would produce the fairest field, though there would still be complainers.

[kwyjibo]

The NCAA ought to conduct its own championships, so the idea of allowing CBS to fill out the brackets is unacceptable. However, I think the make-up of the Selection Committee needs to be reexamined. There are too many BCS league representatives and not enough representation for everyone else.

I think what the NCAA ought to do is designate an 11-person committee to determine the field, seedings, and pairings of the NCAA Tournament. The committee should consist of 1 CBS rep, 1 NBA rep, 4 NCAA conference commissioners (2 from BCS conferences, 1 from mid-major conferences, and 1 from low-major conferences), and 5 independent consultants. Those consultants could be from another country or representatives from high-paying NCAA sponsors -- meaning sponsors who officially license products used throughout the entire NCAA, like Champion or Spaulding or whoever.

I think your first two paragraphs are in complete contradiction with one another. Why should CBS or the NBA or sponsors have any say it what is an NCAA member championship (and your configuration would give more influence to the BCS)? Even professional leagues do not sell themselves out that bad.

If you really care about "fairness" you need less committees and more clear rules about how to get a bid.

[Cowboy]

If you really care about "fairness" you need less committees and more clear rules about how to get a bid.

-and there certainly seems to be a HUGE reluctance to do that

-if one wanted to be a conspiracy theorist they could say better to have very vague criteria so as to be able to shape the field as the committee wants

-should we have a thread where we put forth what rules on selection would be? could be great fun, Bay Area could go crazy on this I'm sure (and like Bay Area says, chance are one day we will be impacted by this)

[kshoe]

If you really care about "fairness" you need less committees and more clear rules about how to get a bid.

Exactly. I've gotten to the point where I'd let a computer do it. Everyone knows the inputs whether its Sagarin, RPI, whatever and the top 34 at-large teams all get bids. If there has to be a human element to it allow some polls in there along the line of what the football does. Weight all three however you want.

Anything would be better then this closed door committee that changes their guidelines to suit their whims and year in and year out gives the shaft to the mid-majors in favor of the BCS schools. Make the inputs transparent and let the Digger Phelps of the world talk their head off about how unfair it is that Arizona didn't get in despite knowing everything that went into the formula well in advance.

[kwyjibo]

Exactly. I've gotten to the point where I'd let a computer do it. Everyone knows the inputs whether its Sagarin, RPI, whatever and the top 34 at-large teams all get bids. If there has to be a human element to it allow some polls in there along the line of what the football does. Weight all three however you want.

Anything would be better then this closed door committee that changes their guidelines to suit their whims and year in and year out gives the shaft to the mid-majors in favor of the BCS schools. Make the inputs transparent and let the Digger Phelps of the world talk their head off about how unfair it is that Arizona didn't get in despite knowing everything that went into the formula well in advance.

If you would allow some "out of the box" thinking.

I would probably go to a slot system and divide the season into thirds. The first third would be "Non-Conference"* schedule and using some non-scoring margin system (I would recommend against the RPI but something like that) the conferences would be given coefficients. These coefficients would be used to determine the allocation of NCAA bids to the conference (say the top 3 conferences get 5 bids, the next 3 get 4, the next 6 get 3, etc.). There would be a lot of fighting about the initial allocation and if people were willing to accept some further complications the numbers would not have to be fixed (or rules could be made about proportionality to conference size).

The key point is that the conference number of bids would be set in January and then the conference season would be about earning those known spots (say the A-10 was allocated 3). Each conference could then allocate their slot as they see fit (1 bid conferences could be required that it be determined by the regular season). The A-10 might give 2 slots to the top 2 teams and then let the other 12 (or 10 or 8 or 4, again completely up to the conference) play for the final spot. I have no problem with a committee then allocating the seeds for the NCAA tournament (the seeds are a source of regular "unfairness" but I can live with that if the other changes were made).

I have a lot of affiliated ideas with this as I have pitching related ideas to some other college ball fans for the last week. There are definitely some details to work out but it is much much better and fairer than the current system.

*There should be rules about scheduling like minimum away games--I have a friend that says there should be a mandatory "unscheduled week" to end the non-conf portion, in which BCS teams are forced to play all the teams that Jay Bilas "knows" they are better than.

[drkelsey55]

If you would allow some "out of the box" thinking.

I would probably go to a slot system and divide the season into thirds. The first third would be "Non-Conference"* schedule and using some non-scoring margin system (I would recommend against the RPI but something like that) the conferences would be given coefficients. These coefficients would be used to determine the allocation of NCAA bids to the conference (say the top 3 conferences get 5 bids, the next 3 get 4, the next 6 get 3, etc.). There would be a lot of fighting about the initial allocation and if people were willing to accept some further complications the numbers would not have to be fixed (or rules could be made about proportionality to conference size).

The key point is that the conference number of bids would be set in January and then the conference season would be about earning those known spots (say the A-10 was allocated 3). Each conference could then allocate their slot as they see fit (1 bid conferences could be required that it be determined by the regular season). The A-10 might give 2 slots to the top 2 teams and then let the other 12 (or 10 or 8 or 4, again completely up to the conference) play for the final spot. I have no problem with a committee then allocating the seeds for the NCAA tournament (the seeds are a source of regular "unfairness" but I can live with that if the other changes were made).

I have a lot of affiliated ideas with this as I have pitching related ideas to some other college ball fans for the last week. There are definitely some details to work out but it is much much better and fairer than the current system.

*There should be rules about scheduling like minimum away games--I have a friend that says there should be a mandatory "unscheduled week" to end the non-conf portion, in which BCS teams are forced to play all the teams that Jay Bilas "knows" they are better than.

How about making the maximum 4 teams from any league. That would cause some new leagues to form and reduce the number on teams per league to 10 max.

This would increas to 36 plus leagues and the top 144 teams to choose from.

[slufanskip]

If you would allow some "out of the box" thinking.

I would probably go to a slot system and divide the season into thirds. The first third would be "Non-Conference"* schedule and using some non-scoring margin system (I would recommend against the RPI but something like that) the conferences would be given coefficients. These coefficients would be used to determine the allocation of NCAA bids to the conference (say the top 3 conferences get 5 bids, the next 3 get 4, the next 6 get 3, etc.). There would be a lot of fighting about the initial allocation and if people were willing to accept some further complications the numbers would not have to be fixed (or rules could be made about proportionality to conference size).

The key point is that the conference number of bids would be set in January and then the conference season would be about earning those known spots (say the A-10 was allocated 3). Each conference could then allocate their slot as they see fit (1 bid conferences could be required that it be determined by the regular season). The A-10 might give 2 slots to the top 2 teams and then let the other 12 (or 10 or 8 or 4, again completely up to the conference) play for the final spot. I have no problem with a committee then allocating the seeds for the NCAA tournament (the seeds are a source of regular "unfairness" but I can live with that if the other changes were made).

I have a lot of affiliated ideas with this as I have pitching related ideas to some other college ball fans for the last week. There are definitely some details to work out but it is much much better and fairer than the current system.

*There should be rules about scheduling like minimum away games--I have a friend that says there should be a mandatory "unscheduled week" to end the non-conf portion, in which BCS teams are forced to play all the teams that Jay Bilas "knows" they are better than.

why non scoring margin system? Are you talking about margin of victory?

[kwyjibo]

How about making the maximum 4 teams from any league. That would cause some new leagues to form and reduce the number on teams per league to 10 max.

This would increas to 36 plus leagues and the top 144 teams to choose from.

You could have 32 conferences and 2 bids each (reg season and tourney). This would be the "fairest" in the sense that if you did not know which team you were how would you want the spots to be allocated. But this type of "Rawlsian" fairness (I figure professor Steve would get the reference) is hardly considered these days.

Of course, I did not choose this to make the idea a little more palatable to people who's idea of "fairness" is different.

[kwyjibo]

why non scoring margin system? Are you talking about margin of victory?

Yes. You have to sacrifice some accuracy in the name of sportsmanship. Football (Bobby Bowden) proved inconclusively that if you had scoring margin in the mix there would be some terribly unsporting and risky things done. Although thinking about it now you could allow margin of victory up to 10 points or so--that should be relatively harmless (you do not want Calipari pressing, running and playing with his top rotation in order to get a 70 point victory). But as I said before I think ELO ("It's a living thing!") ratings probably are the best ( http://elobasketball.awardspace.com/Ratings.html ) and they do not use the margin of victory (scoring margin). Note that SLU looks worse in ELO than it does in RPI this year (which I have no problem with).