Mid Major Coaches Discuss NCAA Selection
 

Candid Coaches: What is your No. 1 issue with the NCAA Tournament selection process?

https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...mpression=true

That article sounds like the last 18 months of UDPride forum discussion and a Neil Sullivan 5-Part Series.

Sad because the solution is so simple...
 

This situation is made to sound like as complex as finding a cure for cancer or Mars travel...when actually it's ridiculously simple.

Combine the NCAA-owned NIT with the NCAA tournament forming a 96 team field...about 1/3 of the Div 1 schools. Thirty two receive a first round bye, while 64 play round one games.

That's it. Mid-major NCAA tournament problem solved.

Scheduling remains challenging....but would becomes an issue without life and death consequences for majors and mid-majors as regards getting into the NCAA tournament.

The consequences of a good major program playing a game at Dayton and losing would not be a potential NCAA tournament killer. With a 96 team field all good/deserving programs would make the NCAAs. The challenge would be making the bye-group of 32, not getting into the tournament. For schools like Dayton that would be a challenge they would welcome compared to the present situation where just getting into the NCAAs is a long-shot unless you have a stellar season.
______________
Another option, just as simple: Each year there are teams that had really good seasons that don't make the NCAA tournament cut. Looking back over ten years or so, that number is not 12 or 15 or 18. More likely it's ten or fewer. That injustice could be easily addressed by expanding the field from 68 to 76, for example. Instead of one First Four site (Dayton) there would be a few play-in games to narrow the field to 64.

Of course a school like UD would prefer too avoid the play-in round. But they would have made the field and are in the tournament. We've been in that situation....and it's infinitely preferable to missing the NCAA tournament. And as for regular season OOC scheduling, it would not be a life and death matter for either Power 5 schools or mid-majors. If you had a good team chances of making the "field of 76", or whatever, would be far better than the current crap shoot a school like Dayton has to deal with every year.

I believed in this solution for a long time, I realize there is a reluctance to split the money with 32 (actually 28) more teams, but there are also 32 more games to sell. They could sell the First Night games to another network, say ESPN when they lose the NIT. Put the First Night on campus, at higher seed. Use ticket sales (minus operational cost) plus TV money and give to each of the participating schools evenly. Then the rest of the tourney continues on as it has.

How about shortening the regular season by 2 games, adding two rounds to the NCAA tournament, and inviting all teams which have a better than 50% record? No byes.

That many first round games played by the lower level teams would not generate enough interest and $s.

How many of the next 28 are lower level teams? It’s likely that 14-20 of those 28 would still be p5 teams. I’m pretty sure NIT #1 seed Indiana would draw enough on their own to make this viable.

As for the money, who says the payout for this 1st round couldn’t be drastically decreased if need be to not cost the big schools a dime once the 64 teams are set. It’s not going to happen any time soon but money isn’t the issue.
Posted via Mobile Device

It would be about the same as the NIT, which is already televised.

I've noticed on various prediction rankings including the 144 list that there are teams predicted to finish 8, 9 or even 10th in their conference that are ranked ahead of teams finishing first in their conference. In some cases, I can see this point but not repeatedly. A team finishing 10th or even 8th in their conference is a team that is consistently not able to score and win the close games. A team winning their conference, is a bunch of winners. There is something to finding a way to win games that is special. This winning spirit should not be underestimated. Some of these teams and players look good on paper but just can't get it done at the end of a close game. Watching a Jim Paxson or a Brian Roberts kick into a different gear to win a game by shear will power is a thing of beauty. This factor of managing to WIN is not reflected in these rankings and there is the definition of the bias towards the big schools.

Of course, a team needs to have enough talent to keep the game close. If it is a blow-out because of distinct differences in talent level then the argument for winning mentality is mute.

I don't like blow-outs. That is why we have divisions. Everyone in division 1 should have an equal playing field for obtaining talent, or at least marginally so. I want to see competitive games to give players the platform to show courage, guts and determination to WIN THE GAME. In order for this platform to exist, some players need to do the grunt work to keep the game close. We should celebrate both the player who makes the winning shot as well as the guy who did the grunt work to rebound or make a steal at the key moment. That is what basketball is all about. That is what I want to see. Whatever has to be done in the NCAA league (Division 1) to provide this scenario is what I would vote for.

You folks know more about the options than I do like: reducing or expanding teams in the tournament, reducing number of teams in division 1 by creating a 1a division, altering recruiting limitations, etc....

How would this solve anything in terms of the prejudice (perceived or real) the mids feel about the majors? The 32 additional bids might in all probability get eaten up by the same majors, this time with 17-15 BIG-12 teams with 7-13 league records. There's no indication the Selection Committee would use those additional bids more advantageously toward the mids.

Would a few more mids get in? Probably, but the bias would remain and not enough that deserved to be in a 96-team field would get in. Which puts us in the exact same position we are now. We kept the same bias and simply shuffled the cut line. To me that's not a solution. It just means the 19-11 A10 team gets bypassed for the 17-16 ACC school. Feels like addressing the symptom and not the disease.

Of course, one could argue if you can't make a 96-team field you have no case to begin with, but we already have that argument at 68. That's the excuse (or reason) pundits reconcile the existing bracket.

One A Ten Championship in 18 years ..on our home court. This in a conference that has ranked 7th to 11th. 3 straight years losing first game in that Tourney. Good run by the Miller group and at our level we have to be dominate in our conference . In terms of support and facilities our conference performance vs Gonzaga in there Conference is what has hurt the program. The schedule is tough for Neil, no doubt but you have to build and or have relationships with people at the Presidents or AD level. To make phone calls is a start but won’t gain immediate results. Neil and Dr Spina need to get on the road and build those relationships. In the meantime out of the box...like St Mary’s and Colorado At neutral are very good for us , well done there. Anthony needs his relationship with Coach Brennen at UC to renew that rivalry. I would leave our guns at the door and try very very hard to reestablish our relationship with Xavier...even if it means we go there or play Neutral for a while. If we need the gate play two exhibitions in the arena and play any top school at there place. Have to chop wood and keep adding ideas and getting people to know you and offer a favor, happens all the time in business and sports. I am a huge Grant supporter, love a Flyer on the bench and he is class. But we are loaded and we need to be very very good this year. No moral victories, Wins. He is the most important hire Neil has or will make. I know how a hard everyone has worked , no doubt, but I Also know we could do better. With the commitment we have made with the Arena and with our simply outstanding fan base , I don’t want to be categorized like other Mid Majors. There are zero and I mean zero excuses coming out of Gonzaga . I think they are one of the great sport stories. I have been to there campus And what they have done is nothing short of brilliant. And over a long period of time. I have been watching and reading all the reasons why not. I look forward to hearing about huge success on and off the court. It’s time.

Consider....
 

Chris, I think the situation would improve dramatically for the mid-majors, bias or not. Now there are 68 teams, 35 of which (I think I've got that right) are automatics, i.e., tournament winners....leaving only 33 at-large slots.

With a 96 team field the number of at-large spots would increase to 61, nearly double. So the 19-11 A10 school still gets bumped by the 17-16 ACC school because of bias. The 19-11 school may be good; not great. Now it's the 25-6 A10 school that's at risk in spite of a great season.

There will always be bias,,,,but its impact on schools like Dayton would be lessened significantly.

Also, consider scheduling. Now mid-pack P5 schools are at risk and don't want to even consider playing at the Arena and losing. Nearly doubling the number of at-large berths takes the pressure off everyone. A loss by a P5 school to a Dayton is of much less significance when March comes.

With 350+ Div 1 BB schools the NCAA tournament at 68 represents fewer than 20% of the schools in the division. Raising the number from the current 68 to about 80 still would be less than 25% of Div 1 schools. With 68 too many programs with really good seasons are left wanting. It wouldn't take much of an increase to correct that, bias or not.

Not sure I agree with all of what Flybye is saying but I absolutely agree with his last comment. It’s time. It’s time to win, win big, and win consistently. AG should never finish below 4th in the A10 ever again. There are way too many resources available to this program relative to its A10 peers. He was brought in to be the coach for the next 10-15 years. His measuring stick should be whether he gets UD close to where Gonzaga is now. I think the A10 is better than the WCC at the top so I think it is unrealistic to expect UD to win the conference every year like Gonzaga (VCU, Davidson, URI, St. Louis>St. Mary’s, BYU, ?,?). I’ve been 100% behind AG from the beginning but my patience will wear thin if this team doesn’t get to the NCAA this year and next year. And, after that, he doesn’t get a pass for rebuilding.

"I think it is pretty fair. There are always teams on the bubble. Mid-majors argue that it is impossible to get an at-large bid. Bottom line is the programs that truly invest money in men's basketball give themselves a great opportunity to get in the tournament. I think it is a great tournament. Bottom line if you are in a multiple bid league -- WIN. If you are a mid-major, have a special year or win conference tourney. No matter what they do, there will always be a group of teams that can argue why they deserve to be in. That is why they call it the BUBBLE."

I believe that there are quite a bit of so called mid-majors that invest in their basketball programs and there are some schools in the P5 conferences that invest less.

"No gripes. Tired of people trying to gripe. Schedule hard and you'll never have to worry. NCAA has looked out for little guys that merit consideration in recent years. Fact is they don't have better players 95 percent of the time and aren't better than the teams that do make the tourney."

Would be interesting to know which coaches made some of these comments. Could the one right above be from a coach of a P5 school that lost to a mid-major in the NCAA Tournament? Hmmmmm. Just wondering.

I'm not sure about a solution but parity is the better long term strategy. I believe that is one area the NFL actually does fairly well. You have to keep fans interested. I think Chris is correct that the effect of tournament expansion would be to shift the bar down and push more of these garbage .500 teams from larger conferences into the tournament. From eye tests to finishing strong, the excuses made in their direction seem endless.

But as was stated above, UD has a single A10 Championship in 18 years. The excuses are rather tiresome in the case of our beloved Flyers. The resources are in place to be successful.

I worry less about winning the A10 tourney, although its nice because of the auto bid, because in win or go home formats a lot of stuff can happen. We do however need to be winning the A10 regular season often, and at worst finishing in the top half (preferably top four every year). A full season should bare out the best teams whereas a tournament doesn't always do that.