Jay Bilas

[milwaukeebill]

Unfortunately I dont have insider. But an ESPN article was just posted by Jay Bilas basically stating D1 bball should be 100-150 schools. You sir, are an idiot.

[slu72]

Jay should take the L out of last name, Jay Bias. But I'll bet Mike Alden and Coach K agree with him.

[cheeseman]

The problem with this idea is that it assumes that only the BCS schools can have good basketball. This is simply a guy who is shilling for his BCS friends. The reason the tourney has had to be expanded is that non BCS schools are not good enough to compete with many non BCS schools. Another problem with this idea is that it is the BCS confs who decide who is BCS worthy - can anybody really say that some of the schools the Big East are accepting are BCS worthy in basketball? The NCAA has a good thing going and actually all the schools are prospering under the current set up - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

[milwaukeebill]

Exactly. Do we include depaul, and oregon state and wazzu in that 150? sure they're in a power conference but really, they all have basically proven nothing in modern day college basketball (Save wazzu's run with tony bennet, now with UVA - spectacular coach btw). And depaul has essential been nothing compared to what they were under ray meyer

List of worst performing major conference teams since 2000:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1142245-college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-history-since-2000-by-teamconference/page/12

(i know its bleacher report, but these are just numbers, not opinions)

[Archy McNally]

I agree, a bunch of BCS crap.

I wouldn't mind getting back to the 250-275 range that existed 15-20 years ago. Isn't the total number closing in on 350? That seems a little too much. I don't think of Longwood, NC A&T, Sacred Heart, and NJIT being legit D1 programs. Really most of the MEAC, NEC, Great West, and the SWAC are pretty bad.

[MB73]

I think he is fundamentally correct, subject to getting the fine details right, which of course will be impossible to accomplish without some unfairness and controversy.

But, it is time, let's get it over with. We would benefit.

ESPN

In the ideal Division I, Bill Self and Roy Williams wouldn't be coaching against weak non-BCS teams.

We have all heard about it but, like unicorns, Bigfoot or a flattering photo from a low angle, it does not exist and never has: the level playing field. In college basketball, we talk a lot about competitive balance and how "unfair" it all can be. We love the occasional upset in the NCAA tournament but, given the disparity in money and talent throughout Division I, we lament how the "little guy" has little chance to win against the big shots. And many seem to think that it is unfair for the little guy without resources to have to compete against the big guy with seemingly unlimited resources.

We hear it all the time. The big guys won't play the little guys on the road. The blue bloods won't play anything but home games and neutral-court games. But the little guy understands the market and now demands an unreasonable amount of "guarantee" games. The little guy cannot get on TV or get media exposure. But nobody watches such games when they are on TV, and so few little guys have capitalized on NCAA tournament success to be nationally relevant that it is a nonstarter. The NCAA tournament has become the Holy Grail of college basketball, and the regular season has become irrelevant and almost meaningless.

All the while, NCAA administrators talk in highbrow terms about reform and a return to the values of higher education. They talk about "getting back" to what college sports are supposed to be about. We talk about students who just happen to be athletes.

It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.

No reasonable person I know in college sports has differed with me when I suggest that Division I basketball should mirror college football in the number of teams. With more than 350 teams and rising, Division I basketball is simply too big, and it is not conducive to better competition or a better product. Whether it is the current Football Bowl Subdivision number of 120 teams or more toward 150 teams, we need to shrink Division I to a reasonable size.

The first reaction to this proposal is "it will ruin the NCAA tournament" and "eliminate any chance of a Norfolk State or Lehigh" and "we wouldn't have George Mason or VCU." Of course, the first concern expressed is for the NCAA tournament and assumes, incorrectly I believe, that the occasional Cinderella upset is driving the bus.

If Division I shrinks to a reasonable size, somewhere between 100 and 150 teams, the level of competition will improve. With a smaller field, the quality of matchups during the regular season will improve because teams will not have such a wide range of cupcakes to schedule. Is there really any compelling reason for Kentucky to play Marist, Radford, Portland, and Chattanooga at Rupp? Does anyone outside of Lexington care to see those matchups? Does it make any more sense than playing Transylvania or Morehouse, the Cats' exhibition games?

Does it move anyone to see North Carolina play Elon, Nicholls, Mississippi Valley State, Monmouth or Tennessee State at home?

In 2012, the Kentucky Wildcats, North Carolina Tar Heels, Michigan State Spartans, Syracuse Orange, Kansas Jayhawks and Washington Huskies (the teams that finished first in BCS leagues) played 37 nonconference games against teams rated below 120 in the Basketball Power Index. Here's the breakdown:

First-place teams in BCS conferences

The breakdown of BCS conference champions and how they fared against non-BCS teams outside of the BPI top 120 and against BCS nonconference opponents.

Conference

Team (non-con games)

vs. non-BCS, BPI-120+

W%

vs. BCS non-con.

W%

ACC

North Carolina (15)

7

1.000

5

.800

Big East

Syracuse (13)

7

1.000

4

1.000

Big Ten

Michigan State (13)

8

1.000

3

.333

Big 12

Kansas (13)

4

1.000

7

.714

Pac-12

Washington (12)

5

1.000

2

.000

SEC

Kentucky (15)

6

1.000

6

.833

The in-betweens (non-BCS teams in BPI top 120): UNC (LBSU, UNLV); Michigan State (Lehigh, Gonzaga, Evansville); Syracuse (Marshall, Bucknell); Kansas (LBSU, Davidson); Washington (Georgia St., Saint Louis, Nevada, UCSB, South Dakota St.); Kentucky (Lamar, Old Dominion, Loyola (MD)

Those six power conference teams, one of which did not even make the NCAA tournament, were a combined 37-0. North Carolina's average margin of victory in those games was 30.7 points. Such games are not competitive. No player is pining to play in such games, and there is no broad appeal to fans. Those games are glorified exhibitions and not in the best interests of the game.

The bottom half of Division I is simply not competitive enough on a consistent basis to justify the bloated size of Division I. If Division I is reduced to a more reasonable size, there would be better games, a better distribution of talent across a smaller pool, and a better and more marketable product.

If Division I shrinks to 120 or 150 teams, the cry that Butler and VCU would be left out is the first one hears. Slow down. Look at the 120 FBS teams on the football side, and then look at the top 150 in the BPI. Teams like Butler (which just bolted the Horizon League for the Atlantic 10) and VCU would be among the 120 to 150 teams that are qualified and committed to a better Division I. It would include plenty of committed and competitive teams, and nobody would miss the early-season games against sacrificial lambs.

But, some would say, what about the teams that would be left out? Where do they go? They go into a new and better Division II and play against each other and those currently in Division II that wish to play "like teams" in a more competitive environment. Division II gives scholarships and competes just as hard and cares just as much as Division I. But, generally, the teams are not as powerful.

Finally, we could easily accommodate the best teams in Division II with invitations to the NCAA tournament. Then, even though Cinderella is not driving the popularity of the NCAA tournament, she could still make an appearance at the ball, and the best interests of the game would be better served

[someoneelse]

For me to get on board, it would have to an soccer league, relegation type system. You can earn your way up and earn your way down. NCAA infractions put you down a tier or two. [Think Italian soccer a few years ago.]

His concerns with 'marketable product' don't sit well with me. But then the marketplace demands these 'buy' games. Which is it?

[Basketbill]

a Two word reason he is wrong.........Norfolk State......

[Basketbill]

secondly, if there is any regular season that is meaningless it is College Football........how many horrible BCS team go on to a bowl games??

[Cowboy]

-i look at this from what direction someone is coming, many of us are supporters and advocates of the little guy as SLU is not in a bcs or power conference anymore (cusa was while we were there, imo) and bilas the duke grad, the espn employee is looking from a power conf perspective

-on his point on ratings, so if SLU is playing x or temple or really anyone on espn is that game going to be promoted on every sportscneter like that sickening (to me) rivalry week which is determined by duke playing unc? i bet not

-i also believe part of this is a response to duke losing first round and they don't want that embarrasment again, but i believe the contract for the tourney is for 8 more years so we have little while to enjoy what we have

-i would love to see his list of who the 150 schools would be, would he ever put that out for examination?

[slu72]

a Two word reason he is wrong.........Norfolk State......

A one word reason he is wrong, Lehigh. That's the game that upset him. Duke lost to a 15.

[slu72]

secondly, if there is any regular season that is meaningless it is College Football........how many horrible BCS team go on to a bowl games??

Better yet, who cares about 'em. Everyone cares about every team in the NCAA. I've never filled out a bracket for bowl games, have you? Do they have bowl bracket challenges on ESPN? ..... nope, didn't think so. Leave the friggin' dance alone, Jay.

[jbizzle09]

Basically, Bilas wrote this article for two reasons:

1. Duke lost to Lehigh.

2. It is May and nothing else to really write about from a college basketball perspective.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[MB73]

In theory, Bias is absolutely right.

South Carolina State, Grambling, Bryant, MD Baltimore City, Keenesaw State, et all should not be in the same Division as Kentucky, Syracuse, Michigan State, North Carolina, those kind of teams.

The problem would be sorting out all of the conferences, who would have the power to make that decision, there would be legal challenges, a logistical nightmare. But getting D-1 hoops to 128-150 teams or so (TBD) instead of 340+ would be good for all. We'd still have a nice 64 team NCAA Tournament.

Try to forget your petty jealousies of Jay Bias and quit jumping to ridiculous conclusions and use your head. Think. Move to the future. It would be great for SLU.

[JMM28]

The problem would be sorting out all of the conferences, who would have the power to make that decision, there would be legal challenges, a logistical nightmare. But getting D-1 hoops to 128-150 teams or so (TBD) instead of 340+ would be good for all. We'd still have a nice 64 team NCAA Tournament.

Personally I think that moving to 125-150 teams would necessitate a move back to a 32 team tournament. It would amount to college bowl games in that any slapdick team over .500 gets into the tournament.

[MB73]

Personally I think that moving to 125-150 teams would necessitate a move back to a 32 team tournament. It would amount to college bowl games in that any slapdick team over .500 gets into the tournament.

Disagree since the quality would be superior to current.

128 is a low number, but workable IMO, it could go to 150 or even 192 (3x64), which is still better than having 344, a joke.

A 64 team tournament would still work.

The quality of the teams and competition would go up, even better players would swarm to the new D-1.

Fans would want to see SLU play these teams instead of suffering through Keenesaw State and everybody in the non conference schedule.

But it is highly unlikely to happen, putting together the new conferences would be prohibitive, like achieving peace in the middle east or Yugoslavia. This is not a corporation that can be restructured.

[jimbofive]

Personally I think that moving to 125-150 teams would necessitate a move back to a 32 team tournament. It would amount to college bowl games in that any slapdick team over .500 gets into the tournament.

push(@myLexicon, "slapdick");

sendThanks(jmm28, "Thanks for that, I'll be using "slapdick" going forward.");

#the rest of my sh!t is obgotdamnfuscated

[JMM28]

Disagree since the quality would be superior to current.

128 is a low number, but workable IMO, it could go to 150 or even 192 (3x64), which is still better than having 344, a joke.

A 64 team tournament would still work.

The quality of the teams and competition would go up, even better players would swarm to the new D-1.

I have a few problems with your thoughts here.

1. Aren't the best players already playing on the top 150-200ish teams. There aren't many outliers that could go from playing at SIUE to significantly contributing at a top 150 school. Decreasing D1 to fewer teams does not mean basketball players will get better.

2. If there are between 125-200, with a 64 team tourney, the winning percentage of teams getting into the tournament will be lower. So while the quality of regular season games may be better on average, the perception is finish .500 and you make the tourney.

3. All this would do for the tourney is replace teams like Norfolk State with teams like Illinois. Is that a better quality matchup? A bad but known team replacing a lightning in a bottle team?

[billiken_roy]

In theory, Bias is absolutely right. South Carolina State, Grambling, Bryant, MD Baltimore City, Keenesaw State, et all should not be in the same Division as Kentucky, Syracuse, Michigan State, North Carolina, those kind of teams. The problem would be sorting out all of the conferences, who would have the power to make that decision, there would be legal challenges, a logistical nightmare. But getting D-1 hoops to 128-150 teams or so (TBD) instead of 340+ would be good for all. We'd still have a nice 64 team NCAA Tournament. Try to forget your petty jealousies of Jay Bias and quit jumping to ridiculous conclusions and use your head. Think. Move to the future. It would be great for SLU.

as long as Jay Bilas and the rest of the Uberelite BCS snobs understand by booting out 200 schools from D-1 means they will then have to play the mid majors like slu in their non conference schedules. remember non division 1 games do not count on their records, do not count towards rpi and are supposed to be limited to 2 exhibition games. i would bet if big time Jay was reminded of that fact, he would then want to keep the lower level scrubs around that he so casually wants out of Division 1.

[cheeseman]

I agree, a bunch of BCS crap.

I wouldn't mind getting back to the 250-275 range that existed 15-20 years ago. Isn't the total number closing in on 350? That seems a little too much. I don't think of Longwood, NC A&T, Sacred Heart, and NJIT being legit D1 programs. Really most of the MEAC, NEC, Great West, and the SWAC are pretty bad.

I bet you did not think of Norfolk St as one either? My point is - the more the merrier - if a school is afraid of competition then this is not the world they should be in. As to Roy's point - they could only play conf games and have 4 exhib games to get ready.

[Cowboy]

-wouldn't there need to be a requirement that d1 schools only play other d1 schools and some on the road in non conf or the schedule will remain as it is?

-would such a requirement survive a legal review?

[MB73]

-wouldn't there need to be a requirement that d1 schools only play other d1 schools and some on the road in non conf or the schedule will remain as it is?

-would such a requirement survive a legal review?

Yes, the theory is sound, like a college professor will tell you, but realistically it will never happen, too many legal and logistical issues, the bureaucracy. Can you imagine realigning all of the conferences for this? Lawyers would be parachuting out of the sky.

Too bad, there would be so many advantages, 120-150-175 teams so most of our non conference games would be against much better opponents than current. And we would be in a better conference, no Fordham, RI, etc. I could go on.

[Bobby Metzinger]

Yes, the theory is sound, like a college professor will tell you, but realistically it will never happen, too many legal and logistical issues, the bureaucracy. Can you imagine realigning all of the conferences for this? Lawyers would be parachuting out of the sky.

Too bad, there would be so many advantages, 120-150-175 teams so most of our non conference games would be against much better opponents than current. And we would be in a better conference, no Fordham, RI, etc. I could go on.

Jay Bilas is a lawyer.

[jbizzle09]

Jay Bilas is a lawyer.

Basically, that is just further proof that he wrote a silly article for the sake of writing a silly article. He has been a lawyer for twenty years. He knows that there is no way that this will ever occur, yet it didn't stop him from writing something like this. Seriously, he has to realize that there are various factors impeding this idea to ever come to fruition, right?

[Cowboy]

Basically, that is just further proof that he wrote a silly article for the sake of writing a silly article. He has been a lawyer for twenty years. He knows that there is no way that this will ever occur, yet it didn't stop him from writing something like this. Seriously, he has to realize that there are various factors impeding this idea to ever come to fruition, right?

-he's a duke guy, therefore no sense of reality (pun intended(you'll see))