Future changes to NCAA selection committee criteria?

[SaveOD238]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

[GooooMarquette]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

That's a good point. It was only five years ago that Xavier, Butler, Creighton and Wichita would all have been considered mid-majors based on conference affiliation.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I saw a chart earlier this year that depicted this perfectly depicted this problem with mid-majors, but I cant find it.  The media will moan and groan that the NCAA is keeping out mid-majors, but it really has everything to do with the growth of conferences.  The number of "major" teams has increased sharply in the last 15 years or so, dating back to the Big East expansion in 2005 that included Marquette. 

Prior to 2005, there were 63 "Power Conference" teams

Big 10- 11
Big 12- 12
Big East- 11
ACC- 9
Pac10- 10
SEC- 10

Now, there are 88. 

Big 10- 14
Big 12- 10
Big East- 10
ACC- 16
Pac12- 12
SEC- 14
AAC- 12

That's an increase of 25, and many of those 25 went from being mid-majors that semi-regularly made the Dance to high-majors that semi-regularly make it (Louisville, Marquette, Wichita, Cincinnati, Xavier, Butler, etc).  In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

Was just thinking the same thing.  Basically the same as the old C-USA.

[SaveOD238]

In terms of the number of DIFFERENT teams that make it as at-larges I would imagine that the NCAA is more diverse in 2018 than in 2013 or 2008 or 2003 or 1998.  Those diverse teams just aren't "mid-majors" any more.

Quoted myself and did my own brief research.  I did a little research and compared a few eras.  From 2000 to 2004 (everything prior to the Big East expansion) there were 88 unique at-large teams (or automatic bids to #1 seeds that would have been at-larges).  From 2014-2018, there were 89 unique at large teams.  So, really, what's changed?  The conference name next to the team name?  Big deal.

[SaveOD238]

Subtract these 12. AAC has never been rated higher than 7th among conferences since its creation. They have a lot more in common with the A10, WCC, and MWC then they do with the P6.

How about I subtract half the conference instead of the whole thing?  I don't buy the idea that UConn, Cincinnati, Wichita, Memphis, and SMU are truly mid-majors, but I also don't think that East Carolina and Tulane should be considered "high majors."

Still 80+ "high major" teams, compared to 63 a decade and a half ago.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

How about I subtract half the conference instead of the whole thing?  I don't buy the idea that UConn, Cincinnati, Wichita, Memphis, and SMU are truly mid-majors, but I also don't think that East Carolina and Tulane should be considered "high majors."

Still 80+ "high major" teams, compared to 63 a decade and a half ago.

The AAC is pretty much the equivalent of the old C-USA. Swap out Louisville, add UConn.

So if you're including Cincy, UConn, and Memphis now you have to include Cincy, Louisville, and Memphis then.

[Herman Cain]

Pat Forde wrote an interesting piece on Yahoo sports about the tournament selection process, noting that if Loyola would have lost in the MVC tournament, they probably wouldn't have gotten an at-large bid this year. The selection process has changed in recent years in ways that now exclude good mid-major teams, largely due to a focus on SOS. A former NCAA exec offered some ideas to encourage bigger programs to add more mid-majors to their schedules in an attempt to give the little guys some leverage in scheduling. His ideas are summarized in the quote below"

"...he has some radical ideas: home games against a team in the 300s in the RPI would nullify that program’s top-ranked home game; an RPI bonus for flipping a contracted home game to make it on the road against a low-major opponent; requiring every FBS team to play at least one non-conference game on the road against the defending champion of a non-FBS opponent."

Personally, I like the idea of giving a good MVC or MAAC school some leverage in scheduling. Plus, a more balanced non-con could be more entertaining for power 6 fans than a schedule featuring a handful of good competitors and a steady diet of cupcakes. Given the money involved, though, some of these changes will be hard to implement. Such is the business of amateur athletics.

https://sports.yahoo.com/loyola-chicagos-final-four-run-reveals-flaws-ncaa-tournaments-selection-process-034007234.html

The PGA tour did something like this a while back forcing all the players to play certain tournaments that they did not historically play . It really did not change things that much. The weaker tournaments still get weaker fields, just slightly less weak.

I think the changes noted may change one or two games a year. However, for the most part the system as presently constituted works well. A small school can up their schedule by doing most of their non con games as road by games against tougher opponents. Similarly, A Big School like Michigan State in the past has loaded up on tough non conference with only a couple of cupcakes.
 
The beauty of the tournament as currently structured is not just the tournament itself, but also the conference tournaments leading up to it especially for the one bid leagues. Even the last 3 or 4 games for the bubble teams in bigger conferences are great for the basketball fan.

TV is willing to pay big dollars for the tournament precisely because it is so well structured.