MVCfans.com

SubGod22 wrote:

CaliRdBrd wrote:
Another caveat...if you win the regular season, that's the auto-bid

That will never happen. Conference tournaments aren't going to go away and there has to be something to play for. And there's no way you risk giving two bids to most conferences because of it.

But the having to finish at least .500 in conference should absolutely be a standard, and I don't think too many people would take issue with it.

One caveat: unbalanced schedules. I'm ok with the rule in spirit but it's going to cause some logistics in conference schedules.

TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).

It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.

MSUDuo wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).

It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.

Yes, the requirement wouldn't say that all teams over .500 automatically get in....but it's going to be virtually impossible for any 10-8 team or better to NOT have one of the 36 best at-large resumes.

Conference tourneys at the start of the year won't make as much money. Anything from Nov-Jan gets smoked out by football.

Plus there's the fact that conference tournaments happen for all sports, at the end of the seasons. It's easy to discuss conference championships in terms of basketball...but this is how it's done for every sport.

TheAsianSensation wrote:

MSUDuo wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:You'll never see the over .500 rule ever implemented for this simple reason: bubble talk would vanish. Every team over .500 in a major conference would get a bid, period. The narrative would become that every single power conference team makes the field at 10-8 or better...no matter how good their resume is.

Bubble talk is a big part of the industry. If you eliminate bubble discussion, you hurt the revenue stream. And if you implement that rule, you kill bubble talk (no one wants to listen to ISU bubble talk nationally, let's be honest).

It wouldn't vanish. The requirement is that you have to be over .500 not that all teams over .500 in conference get in.

Move the conference tournaments to the beginning of the year or something. Still makes money. A lot of the smaller conferences are doing themselves a grave injustice by not sending their best team to the Dance.

Yes, the requirement wouldn't say that all teams over .500 automatically get in....but it's going to be virtually impossible for any 10-8 team or better to NOT have one of the 36 best at-large resumes.

Conference tourneys at the start of the year won't make as much money. Anything from Nov-Jan gets smoked out by football.

Plus there's the fact that conference tournaments happen for all sports, at the end of the seasons. It's easy to discuss conference championships in terms of basketball...but this is how it's done for every sport.

Plus the conference tournaments for basketball mean nothing if they're not playing for anything. At that point, they fail to make any money as well.

Flip it.

Regular season champs get the auto to the Dance and then play the conference tournament for an auto bid into the NIT. Pick best finisher if winner gets selected into the Dance

MSUDuo wrote:Flip it.

Regular season champs get the auto to the Dance and then play the conference tournament for an auto bid into the NIT. Pick best finisher if winner gets selected into the Dance

Back in the way back, NCAA had one rep from every conference. The NIT had the best remaining teams. I still kinda like that.

I wish KP would've used Providence or USC as his example. ISU finished better than both in RPI, KP and Sagarin.

There are two major flaws in how teams are selected and seeded.

First off, who is on the selection committee, they are all ADs and 5 of the 6 power conferences are represented. I am not saying ADs are not knowledgeable on college basketball, but the job of Athletic Director at a university can not allow enough time to truly know enough about all of these teams that they are selecting and therefore with the major conferences represented almost fully they are going to know more about these teams and selected them, also and AD is going to worry about the financial part of selecting more than the actual basketball so you want your conference represented.

Secondly power 5 conferences are not punished for a weak non conference schedule, so many power 5 and 1 teams play nobody in the non conference portion of the schedule other than a rival or in a pre season tournament. However they get rewarded for being in the same conference as a Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky or Michigan State who go out and play a highly competitive early schedule. Instead they get the SOS increase once they get to conference play because the big dogs play each other. With this and the mid major cellar dwellers losing to many of these at large teams it is hard to seed a team like Wichita who honestly should have been a 4 or 5 but ended up a 10.

I think that you need a selection committee made up of former coaches (possibly 5 one for each part of the country), after that I think you could include a few media members, possibly basketball officials, and a couple of school administrators. But with the committee set up the way it is and who the power is situated in the NCAA this will never correct itself. To me the division of the 36 at large bids should lead to at least a dozen mid major schools getting 1 not 3 like this year, and with those 3 at large are very well known teams.