I'm not an Insider and refuse to pay ESPN for the privilege, but I noticed that Bilas wrote an article about elininating the automatic bid for the tourney. Just on the surface I don't like the idea because it would elininate small schools from even getting a chance to play for the title. Anyone have Insider privileges let me know what he actually said.
I agree with Bilas on most things but I think he is way off base here. His basic argument is
1. it is fairer if you just take the 64 best teams
2. You'll get more interesting early round games for the high seeds instead of the blowouts we get now
3. Other sports like the Olympics work that way (which is ABSOLUTELY untrue)
I responded on ESPN thusly...Who is to say who the best 68 teams are? There is no way you can figure that out with any kind of certainty. As is stands, the top 50 teams or so make it every year (between the 37 at-larges and the top conference auto qualifiers, the best 50 are always represented). Why not give the last 18 spots to teams who have actually won something instead of to schools who a committee of people with their own biases think might be worthy? Nobody who realistically deserves a shot is being left out. Is it really that important that the 56th best team based on some flawed metrics be in the tournament?
The Cinderella stories that come out of the automatic bids is one of my favorite aspects of the tournament. Butler, for example, would have never made the tournament in 2010 if they hadn't won the Horizon League tourney to get an automatic bid.
Also, I really enjoy the enthusiasm that is typical of the players on those teams. Most of them are just happy to be there, and simply getting to play in the tournament is a career high point for them. Compare that to the one-and-doners for whom playing in the first round is just one of many inconveniences they have to endure before the NBA draft.
His argument is based on the possibility that Murray State may not make the field if they lose to St. Mary's on Saturday and lose again in the OVC tournament. If they simply took the 68 best teams, the Racers would definitely be included. In the past, so would a VCU, Butler, Davidson, or George Mason, other unlikely upstarts that made deep tournament runs. He wants to eliminate the Mississippi Valley States, the Stony Brooks, and other teams that are little more than speed bumps to the average 1/2 seed. His argument is that Kentucky v Pittsburgh in the opening game would be a lot more appealing than Kentucky v UNC-Asheville.
I don't think he's completely off-base, but I look back at schools like Santa Clara, Hampton, Chattanooga, and Cleveland State and imagine they wouldn't have been included despite giving us some fantastic results.
Personally, I think there should be more auto-bids. Give out automatic bids to every regular-season conference champion, as well. While people think it would mean that 62 of 68 bids are automatic, Right now there are only about 16 leagues that would get a possible additional bid, and more often than not at least half of those win their conference tourney. So maybe you give out 8 additional auto-bids, but you do it to teams that proved over the course of the regular season that they could win. That would also solve the problem of keeping Murray State out, and would give more opportunity to schools like Bucknell, Weber State, Long Island, and Norfolk State, that might actually be capable on their day of pulling a monumental 15/2 or 16/1 upset.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 17, 2012, 10:49:24 AM
The Cinderella stories that come out of the automatic bids is one of my favorite aspects of the tournament. Butler, for example, would have never made the tournament in 2010 if they hadn't won the Horizon League tourney to get an automatic bid.
Also, I really enjoy the enthusiasm that is typical of the players on those teams. Most of them are just happy to be there, and simply getting to play in the tournament is a career high point for them. Compare that to the one-and-doners for whom playing in the first round is just one of many inconveniences they have to endure before the NBA draft.
You mean Butler last year right? In 2010 they were ranked in the top 15 all year...
Quote from: Warriors10 on February 17, 2012, 10:59:00 AMYou mean Butler last year right? In 2010 they were ranked in the top 15 all year...
And if you went top-68, Butler would have made it in 2011, as well. Their RPI going into the tourney was 33. While they would have been on the bubble had they lost to UW-M, they still probably would have earned an 11 or 12 seed (instead of an 8) and there is no way they'd have been left out of a top-68 in 2011, either.
There are 33 conferences. Even if you take the top 15 conferences, in terms of ratings, roughly 20% of teams make it, 37 out of 185 or so schools. If you can't be in the top 20% of mid to high level conferences you don't deserve to go to post season. Every year the top 50% of the big ten teams go to the tournament, the regular season needs to mean something. The auto bids are just to keep the 18 worthless conferences happy and paying their dues to the NCAA.
Quote from: Warriors10 on February 17, 2012, 10:59:00 AM
You mean Butler last year right? In 2010 they were ranked in the top 15 all year...
Yep - sorry, my mistake. And I suppose I didn't take into account that there would be 68 "at-large" bids at that point. But my point remains that I am not the only fan who is a sucker for the underdog.
If they did eliminate the automatic bids, teams should be required to have a .500 record in conference play to qualify. If Pitt goes 6-12 in BE play and makes the Tournament over a mid-major who goes 14-2 in conf, what's the point of the season?
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 17, 2012, 10:05:43 AM
I agree with Bilas on most things but I think he is way off base here. His basic argument is
1. it is fairer if you just take the 64 best teams
2. You'll get more interesting early round games for the high seeds instead of the blowouts we get now
3. Other sports like the Olympics work that way (which is ABSOLUTELY untrue)
I responded on ESPN thusly...Who is to say who the best 68 teams are? There is no way you can figure that out with any kind of certainty. As is stands, the top 50 teams or so make it every year (between the 37 at-larges and the top conference auto qualifiers, the best 50 are always represented). Why not give the last 18 spots to teams who have actually won something instead of to schools who a committee of people with their own biases think might be worthy? Nobody who realistically deserves a shot is being left out. Is it really that important that the 56th best team based on some flawed metrics be in the tournament?
Eric "The Eel" Moussambani from Equatorial Guinea would like to prove point #3 for you
http://videosift.com/video/Worst-Olympic-qualifying-race-ever-100-Meter-Dog-Paddle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Moussambani
That's a 16 seed auto-bid from a low major conference if I've ever seen one!
The current format is pure genius because the whole structure is based on the premise the NCAA Tournament is not an invitational -- the only teams truly excluded from the opportunity to play in the tournament are those who don't participate in a conference tournament (Ivies and independents). Ergo, anybody (again, except Ivies and independents), regardless of regular season performance, can enter - and win - the NCAA Tournament by following one simple rule:
*** Keep winning. ***
When your conference tournament starts... just keep winning. You'll dance in no time.
Was your bubble burst on Selection Sunday? Too bad... you should have won your conference tournament.
Bilas is a good guy, but he needs to let this one go. This isn't the BCS. It's college basketball.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 17, 2012, 10:51:06 AM
Personally, I think there should be more auto-bids. Give out automatic bids to every regular-season conference champion, as well.
I guarantee that if both the regular season champion and the conference tournament champion both got auto bids, almost every conference would send two teams every year. Their would actually be incentive for the regular season champs to lose, since two conference teams in the tourney means twice the revenue for the conference. The home court advantage a lot of these conferences give wouldn't be given in the future. Bracketing advantages like byes would be done away with.
It is a bit unfair that the regular season champ doesn't go, but I think it is the best system when you consider the best part of all of these small conferences is the conference tournament.
The Olympics in team sports (specifically soccer and basketball) operates through regional qualifying tournaments, similar to the World Cup, and not dissimilar from automatic bids. For many years, Australia was classified as Oceania, but had to win their region just to get into a playoff against a South American team to qualify for the World Cup. So they pulled up stakes and re-aligned to the Asian Confederation. Sound familiar? They're like the Boise State of soccer.
If right now, you took the top 32 teams for the 2014 World Cup, the U.S. would barely make the cut at #31, but because the goal is to be a "World" Cup, the US is in so long as they're one of the 3 best teams from their region.
Same for the NCAA. The goal isn't "The 68 best teams." It's designed to be a tournament for the entire NCAA, and when you consider conference tournaments for smaller conferences as play-in games, it practically is. If anything, I'd like to see them go back to a 64 team bracket. Has anyone done an analysis of what that "last team in" for at-large teams has done record-wise since the tournament went to 65 and subsequently 68?
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 17, 2012, 11:38:12 AMI guarantee that if both the regular season champion and the conference tournament champion both got auto bids, almost every conference would send two teams every year. Their would actually be incentive for the regular season champs to lose, since two conference teams in the tourney means twice the revenue for the conference.
If that were the case, why didn't Southern Miss tank the CUSA championship game against Houston in football this year? They cost their school a huge payday. I don't think this would happen as often as you think. Are players going to deliberately play poorly when this might be the only title they win? Will coaches put out poor teams intentionally and risk upsetting alma mater that wanted the conference double?
Every now and then it might happen, but my guess is you'll see no more than 2-5 extra bids per year.
I was curious, so I did it.
The 65-team tournament debuted in 2001, after the Mountain West Conference started up. While all this did was add an automatic bid for the MWC, with two one-bid conference champions always contesting the play-in game, it had the practical effect of opening the door for one more at-large team for a spot that normally would have gone to a one-bid league's champion.
I graded the "lowest seeds" as assuming a 64 team tournament, who would be the first teams out, so in the tournament's present format, it would be the play-in game participants, and in 65-game tournaments, it would be the lowest-seeded at-large seed. In situations where there were teams tied for the lowest seed, I included both of them. I was not able to find at-large status information for the 2001, 2002, or 2003 NCAA Tournaments.
2011 (VCU, UAB, USC, Clemson): 6-4
2010 (tie, Utah State and UTEP only at-large #12 seeds): 0-2
2009 (tie, Wisconsin and Arizona only at-large #12 seeds): 3-2
2008 (Villanova): 2-1
2007 (tie, Illinois, Arkansas, Old Dominion at #12): 0-3
2006 (tie, Bradley, Air Force at #13): 2-2
2005 (tie, Northern Iowa, UCLA, UAB): 1-3
2004 (UTEP #13): 0-1
Total: 14-18 (9-17 without VCU's Miracle run) 11 of 18 teams were out before the round of 32.
Dream senario would be 16th seed beating Kentucky.
Kudos to you, warrior69, for the somewhat subtle bastardization of Lin in a post with a LINk to ESPN.
Quote from: Benny B on February 17, 2012, 11:28:54 AM
\Ergo, anybody (again, except Ivies and independents), regardless of regular season performance, can enter - and win - the NCAA Tournament by following one simple rule:
*** Keep winning. ***
When your conference tournament starts... just keep winning. You'll dance in no time.
Was your bubble burst on Selection Sunday? Too bad... you should have won your conference tournament.
The problem is this isnt necessarily true. When it comes to the tourneys, you can get to the big dance if you "Start winning". You don't need to win until the last 3 or 4 games you play.
I would never want to eliminate the automatic bids for conferences, but I do think the system should be tweaked, and the bids allocated to the conferences themselves to decide how to allocate. That way, if a conference wanted to find a way to make their regular season more meaningful than just for seeding for their conference tourney, they could. Bilas' one good point in the whole thing about Murray St could be rectified this way. Essentially as the system stands, its possible the only good thing that comes from Murray St's season thus far is the number one seed in the OVC tournament. If the bids were handed to the conferences to decide, they could decide to have some sort of conference selection committee that picks the team. Sure this undercuts the value of the conf tourney a bit - but better that than undermining the entire conference season.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 17, 2012, 10:51:06 AM
Personally, I think there should be more auto-bids.
That gives the regular season champion no incentive to win their tournament; plus mid-majors would hope for their regular season champion to lose in order to get 2 bids include of one. Too many conflicts of interest.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 17, 2012, 12:25:41 PM
If that were the case, why didn't Southern Miss tank the CUSA championship game against Houston in football this year? They cost their school a huge payday. I don't think this would happen as often as you think. Are players going to deliberately play poorly when this might be the only title they win? Will coaches put out poor teams intentionally and risk upsetting alma mater that wanted the conference double?
Every now and then it might happen, but my guess is you'll see no more than 2-5 extra bids per year.
Tank? No. But, their motivation, if already in the tournament, would certainly be different. Especially at the mid-major level.
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 17, 2012, 01:01:10 PM
The problem is this isnt necessarily true. When it comes to the tourneys, you can get to the big dance if you "Start winning". You don't need to win until the last 3 or 4 games you play.
I would never want to eliminate the automatic bids for conferences, but I do think the system should be tweaked, and the bids allocated to the conferences themselves to decide how to allocate. That way, if a conference wanted to find a way to make their regular season more meaningful than just for seeding for their conference tourney, they could. Bilas' one good point in the whole thing about Murray St could be rectified this way. Essentially as the system stands, its possible the only good thing that comes from Murray St's season thus far is the number one seed in the OVC tournament. If the bids were handed to the conferences to decide, they could decide to have some sort of conference selection committee that picks the team. Sure this undercuts the value of the conf tourney a bit - but better that than undermining the entire conference season.
Not only undercuts value, but if auto-bids are awarded to regular season winner, no need for a conference tournament/cash machine.
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 17, 2012, 01:01:10 PM
I would never want to eliminate the automatic bids for conferences, but I do think the system should be tweaked, and the bids allocated to the conferences themselves to decide how to allocate.
I think the conferences do choose how they determine their auto-bid. Frankly, if you gave any conference the option, they will choose tournament winner gets the bid, because without the bid on the line, the conference tournament loses it major reason for interest. I know I wouldn't watch the NEC championship game on ESPN if the winner didn't get to go to the NCAAs.
we've talked about this in the office a bit over the years and while it would never happen because of the lost revenue for the conferences, we've agreed that getting rid of the conference tourneys and giving automatic bids to the conference champs is about the only way to make the conference schedule actually meaningful.
I do like the conference tournaments from the viewpoint that it gives the fans more games to watch shortly before the season is sadly over.
Quote from: CTWarrior on February 17, 2012, 02:48:12 PM
I think the conferences do choose how they determine their auto-bid. Frankly, if you gave any conference the option, they will choose tournament winner gets the bid, because without the bid on the line, the conference tournament loses it major reason for interest. I know I wouldn't watch the NEC championship game on ESPN if the winner didn't get to go to the NCAAs.
Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on February 17, 2012, 02:38:10 PM
Not only undercuts value, but if auto-bids are awarded to regular season winner, no need for a conference tournament/cash machine.
All good points. I think the most equitable way to do it would be similar to a lot of high school conference tourneys - I remember in HS soccer, you got 3 pts for a win and 1 for a tie in league play. Then when the conference tourney rolled around, the winner got 12 pts, second place got 9, third got 6, etc etc (probably jumbling the point totals, but you get the idea). That way the conf tourney is like a bonus round, but doesnt render the season meaningless. Not necessarily suggesting it, because its both complicated and doesnt solve the $$/interest issue ya'll brought up. Just think its an interesting approach.
Quote from: Homebrew101 on February 17, 2012, 03:01:02 PM
we've talked about this in the office a bit over the years and while it would never happen because of the lost revenue for the conferences, we've agreed that getting rid of the conference tourneys and giving automatic bids to the conference champs is about the only way to make the conference schedule actually meaningful.
Yea, except for all of those at large bids that give the majority of major and mid major schools their entry into the dance, the conference schedule means nothing.
Quote from: Bocephys on February 17, 2012, 03:13:28 PM
Yea, except for all of those at large bids that give the majority of major and mid major schools their entry into the dance, the conference schedule means nothing.
Not sure I agree with this. The conference schedule and a team's performance in it will be the main way at-large bids are earned. I agree with those who say that the conference season is basically meaningless for the low major, one bid leagues.
Quote from: brewcity77 on February 17, 2012, 12:25:41 PM
If that were the case, why didn't Southern Miss tank the CUSA championship game against Houston in football this year? They cost their school a huge payday. I don't think this would happen as often as you think. Are players going to deliberately play poorly when this might be the only title they win? Will coaches put out poor teams intentionally and risk upsetting alma mater that wanted the conference double?
Every now and then it might happen, but my guess is you'll see no more than 2-5 extra bids per year.
Southern Miss was looking at improving their own ranking and the bowl they would go to. There is no such advantage to be gained in the scenario you describe. I'm not suggesting the players will play poorly on purpose, but coaches may give players more rest or use the tournament to see how some of their bench players perform with increased minutes, like many coaches do in the NIT. The league will be less likely to grant byes or give home court advantage to higher seeds, etc.
Quote from: Warriors10 on February 17, 2012, 01:16:16 PM
That gives the regular season champion no incentive to win their tournament; plus mid-majors would hope for their regular season champion to lose in order to get 2 bids include of one. Too many conflicts of interest.
Hell, if I were running a low-major conference, I would *exempt* the regular season champion from the tournament so that I could get two teams in. Which actually might be pretty exciting if you buy into the two-bids per conference scenario.
Maybe what they should do is simply expand the Tuesday games to add the regular season champions. The 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds from each bracket should be determined by play-in game.
I would like to see all the conference championships play at campus sites rather than one neutral site. The highest seed teams based on regular season record would get home court advantage. I believe these games would all be sell outs and cut down on travel costs for half the league. In this scenario the regular season champ would most likely win the conference champioship with home court advantage Even some of the early first round games in the Big East don't fill the Garden. Don't think it would happen though.
I live close to Sacred Heart University, a member of the NEC. That conference plays the tournament games on the home court of the higher seeded teams. I went to the gym (their home gym is really just a high school gym, seats maybe 1,200-they used to call it the SHU Box) for the NEC championship game a few years ago against Mount Saint Mary's. It was sold-out and maybe the loudest, most electric atmosphere I've ever been in for a basketball game. The quality of play was terrible and SHU lost, but I agree that the games on campus sites is a good way to go for the smaller conferences.
The worst thing about college football is the widely perpetuated myth that "Every Game Counts" when in reality that's true for about 15-20 teams every year, while the rest of them have no shot at winning a championship no matter what they do - just ask TCU, Boise St, and Utah.
One great thing about college basketball is that every NCAA Div 1 team absolutely has a chance to win the national championship tournament. It probably won't happen, but they have a chance. Eliminating auto-bids would completely ruin that, and for what? So 12 more mediocre teams that didn't win their conference get bids? If that's the goal, then make the 13, 14, and 15 seeds play play-in games - don't eliminate the auto-bids!
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 17, 2012, 03:36:15 PM
Hell, if I were running a low-major conference, I would *exempt* the regular season champion from the tournament so that I could get two teams in. Which actually might be pretty exciting if you buy into the two-bids per conference scenario.
Maybe what they should do is simply expand the Tuesday games to add the regular season champions. The 13, 14, 15 and 16 seeds from each bracket should be determined by play-in game.
There is only one automatic bid per conference.
I think the top seeds should go to conference champions who also win their conference tournament. The conference should be ranked on that year's power.
For instance
1. Big 10
2. Big 12
3. SEC
4. Big East
keep going until you get all 31 or 32 conferences ranked
Ohio St wins Big 10, but does not win Big 10 tournament they fall to back of 32.
Assume 20 conference champions do not win their tournament including Ohio St. 32-20= 12(conference champions who also win their tournament), which means Ohio St falls to 13th, which is a 4 seed. Big 12 champion also one of the losers so they fall to 14th.
The top four seeds go to the champions of the highest powered conference that has their champion win the tournament. If enough teams lose the weakest conference could get a number 1 seed. This certainly would give importance to winning both the conference and the conference tournament. It also gives a team from a smaller conference a chance to win a game as one of the reasons a 16th seed always loses is that they are playing a 1 seed. This system could result in them getting a high seed and therefore not playing the best team in the country right off the bat.
Quote from: MUMac on February 17, 2012, 06:03:58 PM
There is only one automatic bid per conference.
Yeah I know....I was responding to brew's post about giving regular season champions bids as well.