Bilas article on downsizing D1 hoops

[jesmu84]

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=7908722&_slug_=reducing-size-division-make-better-ncaa-hoops-product-ncb&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb%2fblog%3fname%3dbilas_jay%26id%3d7908722%26_slug_%3dreducing-size-division-make-better-ncaa-hoops-product-ncb

Anyone got insider?

[Dawson Rental]

I don't, but here is the for free lead in line.

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

[Bocephys]

I do!!  It literally costs me $4/year.  Just wait for ESPN the Magazine to go on sale for $3-4/year, but it up for as many years as it lets you.  Then you can activate insider once your first issue arrives.  It's not worth $30/year, but it's well worth $4. 

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.

Too Many Teams In Division I?
Reduce D-I by 200-plus teams and eliminate Cinderella? No thanks, writes Myron Medcalf. He'll take March Madness just like it is. Column

• O'Neil:
Why kill growth of little guy?

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.

[Dawson Rental]

I don't think that the NCAA can do this by fiat due to restraint of trade reasons.  The best way to deal with the increase in Division I teams is to eliminate the incentive that brought so many teams into Division I, the automatic NCAA tourney bid to conference champions.  When Division II (and III and NAIA) teams realized that they could go Division I get together with a group of other former lower division schools and form a new conference and get an NCAA invite for the conference champ, the race to join Division I was on.  Now the NCAA has caught on to the point that they require champs from some newer conferences to play a play-in game to get to the first round.  Unfortunately that results in the possibility that such teams can play two tourney games, the first of which they have an honest chance to win.

A simple solution would be to not allow for automatic qualifiers from conferences where no members (including the conference champ) would have qualified as an at-large team for the past five or ten years.  That would cause the lower ranked teams to dwindle away as their chances for any kind of a post season disappear, so long as they remain in Division I.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

LittleMurs: I'm not an antitrust expert, but I don't see how this would be an issue of restraint of trade? The NCAA wouldn't be preventing these schools from playing basketball, just from playing basketball as part of their private association.

[Dawson Rental]

LittleMurs: I'm not an antitrust expert, but I don't see how this would be an issue of restraint of trade? The NCAA wouldn't be preventing these schools from playing basketball, just from playing basketball as part of their private association.

You're right restraint of trade is a bit of a reach especially for schools in the NCAA, rather than the NAIA.  An even better argument for NCAA members would be that the "association" was excluding some members from a opportunity it was offering to other members.  I don't see how an association can treat its members so disparately, unless the ones excluded from Division I had agreed to such treatment when they joined the association.  Without researching this, I can't be sure, but I am fairly certain that the NCAA would find solid legal hurdles to just deciding; "We're gonna drop some of (most of?) you guys from Division I."

[Ellenson Guerrero]

You're right restraint of trade is a bit of a reach especially for schools in the NCAA, rather than the NAIA.  An even better argument for NCAA members would be that the "association" was excluding some members from a opportunity it was offering to other members.  I don't see how an association can treat its members so disparately, unless the ones excluded from Division I had agreed to such treatment when they joined the association.  Without researching this, I can't be sure, but I am fairly certain that the NCAA would find solid legal hurdles to just deciding; "We're gonna drop some of (most of?) you guys from Division I."

I think I understand what you are saying, but I think its key to remember that the NCAA isn't a governmental organization. There is no equal protection clause for private action. Individual and private associations are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of protected categories (e.g. race, sex, religion, etc). However, they are allowed to discriminate and classify based on any other criteria. The NCAA doesn't have to provide the same opportunities or privileges to all of its members, but can treat differently members differently as it sees fit. If the "disadvantaged" members don't like it, fine, time to start a rival league of school.

Since the NCAA isn't the government, I think it could say "Hey, we just feel like dropping half of you schools" from out private club. But then again, I haven't taken antitrust law so you could be right (especially as a practical matter).

[Dawson Rental]

I think I understand what you are saying, but I think its key to remember that the NCAA isn't a governmental organization. There is no equal protection clause for private action. Individual and private associations are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of protected categories (e.g. race, sex, religion, etc). However, they are allowed to discriminate and classify based on any other criteria. The NCAA doesn't have to provide the same opportunities or privileges to all of its members, but can treat differently members differently as it sees fit. If the "disadvantaged" members don't like it, fine, time to start a rival league of school.

Since the NCAA isn't the government, I think it could say "Hey, we just feel like dropping half of you schools" from out private club. But then again, I haven't taken antitrust law so you could be right (especially as a practical matter).

The NCAA doesn't have to provide the same opportunities or privileges to all of its members, but can treat differently members differently as it sees fit.

I guarantee that if this attitude were adopted by the NCAA, there would be litigation.  Unless the NCAA agreement specifically allows the association to do this.  As you say, the NCAA isn't the government.  It isn't a creation of the constitution, it is bound by the agreement that created the association, however.  Any court would imply a contract term that the Association was required to treat all its members the same, provided that that wasn't already clearly stated in the association agreement, itself.

If you joined a country club and after paying your dues you were told, - "Oh, I'm sorry we've decided not to allow certain members, like yourself, to sign up for tee times on weekends' - would you feel unfairly treated?  Would you feel that you had some legal recourse?

Associations can as be discriminatory in accepting their members, - if they are not a public accommodation, or need to hold public licenses, etc. - but once they take a member they had better treat that member the same as every other member unless that member somehow agreed to be treated disparately when joining.

The best way to accomplish a reduction in the number of Division I schools would be for those who were to be in the reformulated Division I to just leave the NCAA and form their own association.  Some variation on this was used when the BCS was formed to rule what used to be Divison I NCAA football.  My understanding is that he BCS is its own organization which makes all decisions for BCS football independent of the NCAA.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/about+the+ncaa+how+programs+are+classified

It looks like the NCAA pretty much leaves it up to the schools to decide what level they want to compete at. So I think you are right, that unless the required number of schools approved an amendment to the NCAA's bylaws, then they couldn't just reclassify schools between divisions. I agree that this would likely come down to the terms in the NCAA's bylaws on amendments to the NCAA's policies and requirements for participating in certain divisions.

My more general point, I guess, was that nothing compels the top Div 1 teams from always competing in the same division as the lower tier teams (as you alluded to in discussing how the top football schools dropped out of the NCAA to form the BCS).

[77ncaachamps]

Much like Abigail Adams did for the women of the colonies,

"THINK OF THE ELONs/NORTHERN ARIZONAs/PEPPERDINEs/MISSOURI STATEs!!!"

[Pakuni]

The NCAA itself isn't a government institution, but its members receive vast amount of direct and indirect federal funding and therefore must abide by federal requirements, such as Title IX.

[TribalRage]

Bilas is a great commentator but he should limit himself to the court and not the courts. He is way out on this. His Duke arrogance is showing.

[cheebs09]

He is a lawyer.

[TribalRage]

So is Len Elmore but neither practice. Come to think of it so is John Dodds. Draw your own conclusion.

[6Under20]

Would there be enough 'buy' games with only 150 teams?

[Dawson Rental]

Would there be enough 'buy' games with only 150 teams?

Nope, getting rid of such games seems to be a part of what Bilas wants to accomplish.  Only true peer vs. peer games.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

So is Len Elmore but neither practice. Come to think of it so is John Dodds. Draw your own conclusion.

Bilas actually does practice law in the offseason.

http://www.mvalaw.com/professionals-30.html

[Dawson Rental]

Bilas actually does practice law in the offseason.

http://www.mvalaw.com/professionals-30.html

So, where's his implementation plan?

[tower912]

It is one man's opinion and I disagree.    The first Friday of the NCAA tourney, with Norfolk, OhioU, and Lehigh taking down the pedigrees was the greatest 3 hours in sports history.   Alumni, current students, future students of the 3 Davids will all know every detail of those 3 games like MU alum know every detail of the 77 championship.   It was 'Hoosiers' come to life.   Pure magic.   His plan demolishes that.   

[mug644]

It is one man's opinion and I disagree.    The first Friday of the NCAA tourney, with Norfolk, OhioU, and Lehigh taking down the pedigrees was the greatest 3 hours in sports history.   Alumni, current students, future students of the 3 Davids will all know every detail of those 3 games like MU alum know every detail of the 77 championship.   It was 'Hoosiers' come to life.   Pure magic.   His plan demolishes that.   

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his point was that teams like those three (who are in the top 150) would still be in the tournament, that the tournament wouldn't change. Would would (and should, by his thinking) is the crappy buy-in cum exhibition games at the beginning of the season.

[MU82]

It is one man's opinion and I disagree.    The first Friday of the NCAA tourney, with Norfolk, OhioU, and Lehigh taking down the pedigrees was the greatest 3 hours in sports history.   

Wow. I knew it was fun when I was watching it, but little did I know a couple months ago that I actually was witnessing the greatest three hours in the history of sports! I would have DVRed it and saved it for all posterity.

[CTWarrior]

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his point was that teams like those three (who are in the top 150) would still be in the tournament, that the tournament wouldn't change. Would would (and should, by his thinking) is the crappy buy-in cum exhibition games at the beginning of the season.

That was his point, but of course his idea is impossible to administer.  You'd end up picking 120 or 150 schools (probably the football schools) and they would never change because the mechanics of changing (conference affiliation, scheduling, etc) would make movement in or out impossible.  Lehigh and Norfolk State aren't normally in the top 120 so it is doubtful they would have had the opportunity they had last year.  Even Murray State, a legit top 20 team last year, may not be included. 

Letting a handful of the best D2 teams on the surface would solve that problem, but once you insititute a clear line between D1 and D2 schools, the chasm between the two will grow, as TV exposure, NBA access, etc will be solely in D1.

[TribalRage]

Wow. I knew it was fun when I was watching it, but little did I know a couple months ago that I actually was witnessing the greatest three hours in the history of sports! I would have DVRed it and saved it for all posterity.

Good to know. I was having second thoughts having DVR'd those games over the US-USSR hockey game, Fisk's shot in Game 6 of the 75 Series, Jessie Owens 1936 Olympics, Gehrig's Luckiest Man speech, Bobby Thompson's shot, Jordan's last shot as a Bull Game 6 '98 Finals, Whitehead's last second shot in the '77 semi-final game against UNC-C, the last play of Cal-Stanford in '82, Vince getting carried off the field at the end of Super Bowl II.

[Spotcheck Billy]

^ you forgot The Decision on that list 

[TribalRage]

Bilas actually does practice law in the offseason.

http://www.mvalaw.com/professionals-30.html

Interesting in his bio it is all about basketball and almost nothing about legal skills. Likely does little as a lawyer but is a heckuva rainmaker for the firm.