NCAA committee protecting the BCS schools

[Da Coach]

It was something many of our posters noticed right away. There is clearly a deliberate attempt to weed out the midmajors and protect the major schools from embarrassing early upsets, by pitting most of the midmajors against other midmajors.
Here is an article where a writer finally notices this--

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/302906.html

 

[Dallas Brave]

Money makes the world go round ... and money via television (big names only please, 1 Cinderella a year is all that's necessary) and the payout of broadcast rights to the NCAA participants has put the clamp on non-BCS bids and first round matchups. The Duke loss to VCU last year cost the ACC over $176,000.

Here is how the money is paid out to tournament teams and their conferences:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/03/31/how-the-ncaa-divvies-up-its-money/

"Under the NCAA's basketball revenue distribution plan, a conference's annual share is based on the number of teams in the NCAA Tournament and how successful those league's teams are on the court over a six-year period. Units are determined by adding the number of teams and wins each year in the tournament."

Does anybody really believe that money is not influencing the selection committee?

 

[Dallas Brave]

How many of the talking heads, who love the fame and limelight and are paid by the guys with the money, are suggesting expanding the tournament for the benefit of the student-athlete? Bobby Knight is the only one I have heard and he is not beholden to the guys with the money.

Why ... because more teams require more payout ... or, in other terms, less money for the power leagues.

They argue against expanding because, "Do those extra teams really have a chance to win?" And they are right ... they don't have a realistic chance to win the tournament. But if that was the rationale for deciding who plays, there would only be 32 teams selected to make the tournament. In the last 29 years since the tournament has been expanded ... no team below an 8 seed (NC St.) has won. So why bother with the 9-16 seeds anymore ... shove 'em in the NIT if the NCAA tournament is only meant for teams that can win it.

 

[Double D]

Money makes the world go round ... and money via television (big names only please, 1 Cinderella a year is all that's necessary) and the payout of broadcast rights to the NCAA participants has put the clamp on non-BCS bids and first round matchups. The Duke loss to VCU last year cost the ACC over $176,000.

Here is how the money is paid out to tournament teams and their conferences:
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/03/31/how-the-ncaa-divvies-up-its-money/

"Under the NCAA's basketball revenue distribution plan, a conference's annual share is based on the number of teams in the NCAA Tournament and how successful those league's teams are on the court over a six-year period. Units are determined by adding the number of teams and wins each year in the tournament."

Does anybody really believe that money is not influencing the selection committee?

I agree with this sentiment 100%. As the column reads, the matching of the teams from the NON BCS conferences began last year and IMO it took A LOT of the luster off the first two rounds.

I know that people like us are likely in the minority but the first two rounds of the NCAA are what make it special IMO.

The games pitting the power conference teams vs. the Drake's and Western Ky's of the world are what gives those two days their excitment and charm. But, now as in last year, those teams are playing each other on day one.

 

[Bravesfan]

Great article. I agree with everything about it, but you could look at one thing this way. If these six mid-major teams played separately and they all lost, obviously this would be a worse scenerio then if these six teams paired up against each other with three guaranteed to win a game. This is the only good thing about this.

My problem with pairing teams up though is that it takes away the joy of seeing these teams "upset" some of the big boys. I don't understand how the powers that be don't see this. MORE people watch the tournament for the upsets, NOT less! And upsets increase ratings and get more money into their already huge pockets. Not allowing these teams get the chance against their BCS brothers even at the expense of a few BCS teams seems like flawed logic to me!

 

[Dallas Brave]

It was something many of our posters noticed right away. There is clearly a deliberate attempt to weed out the midmajors and protect the major schools from embarrassing early upsets, by pitting most of the midmajors against other midmajors.
Here is an article where a writer finally notices this--

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/302906.html

The more I read this article, the more I like it. There are some great passages.

In 2006, Wisconsin-Milwaukee toppled Oklahoma in its opener. Northwestern State eliminated Iowa. Bucknell dismissed Arkansas. Bradley upended Kansas and then Pittsburgh. Gonzaga, a No. 3 seed, knocked out Xavier and Indiana. Wichita State took the wood to Seton Hall and Tennessee before being eliminated by George Mason, which had beaten Michigan State and North Carolina. The Patriots would advance to the Final Four with an Elite Eight victory over UConn.

Those results validated the capabilities of teams residing outside the BCS conferences. They could play with the big boys, especially at neutral sites, a luxury they??™re seldom granted during the regular season. Maybe they wouldn??™t shine every year, but the potential was there. The gap between the top mid-majors and a wealth of BCS teams was exposed as narrower than many perceived.

But instead of acknowledging top mid-majors as credible forces worthy of new respect, the selection committee circled the wagons on behalf of the BCS conferences and began manipulating the seedings to diminish the chances such an onslaught would happen again. And so last year in the first round it was Butler against Old Dominion, and Southern Illinois against Holy Cross, and Creighton against Nevada, and then this year it??™s more of the same. Could the elitist machinations be any more transparent?

There was some thought that the mid-majors would get a fairer shake with Tom O??™Connor, the AD at George Mason and formerly at Bona, chairing the selection committee. Who??™s kidding whom? The major conferences still pull all the strings.

 

[houstontxbrave]

There were a lot of talking heads yesterday memoaning that Coppin State was even getting to play last night. Obviously they were not very good all season but what I do not understand is, they won the MEAC tournament so they were the automatic bid from that conference as was Mount St Mary's who won the Northeast conference automatic bid.

So if both teams won automatic bids which should put both school into the NCAA tournament they both had to play another game to get into the tournament.

Shouldnt the play in game involve teams that did not receive automatic bids?

 

[pfunk880]

There were a lot of talking heads yesterday memoaning that Coppin State was even getting to play last night. Obviously they were not very good all season but what I do not understand is, they won the MEAC tournament so they were the automatic bid from that conference as was Mount St Mary's who won the Northeast conference automatic bid.

So if both teams won automatic bids which should put both school into the NCAA tournament they both had to play another game to get into the tournament.

Shouldnt the play in game involve teams that did not receive automatic bids?

Yeah, I'm starting to think the best idea might be to put the automatic qualifiers in the field and enough at-larges to bring the field to 61. Then, take eight bubble teams and have them play-in to the 12 seeds. This year, you could have had teams like Arizona, Arizona St., Baylor, Villanova, Illinois State, Kentucky, VCU, and Ohio State play to earn their spots legitimately.

 

[beanocookschins]

I understand the paranoia here but why would the head of the committee--the AD of George Mason University--be out to protect the BCS schools? It makes no sense.

I don't believe for a second that the committee put mid-majors v. mid-majors on purpose to weed them out. No way. One could argue they put majors v. majors to weed THEM out.

The committee is filled with BCS conference people and non-BCS conference people. Do you think when Doug Elgin was on the committee he was told to "look out for the BCS schools?" If so I'm sure he said screw you. Same for the GMU AD, the Horizon League commish, etc.

The individual tourney matchups are the very last thing that gets done on Selection Sunday. I would say one reason you see more mid-major v. mid-major matchups is that now, for the first time, mid-majors are actually HIGHER seeds. Before they were always the lower seed.

Now with the committee and people seeing how good the non-BCS schools are they are getting higher seeds (Drake a 5, Butler a 7)--they of course will play lower seeds who are often times non-BCS schools.

Sorry, no pro-BCS conspiracy. It doesn't make any sense and there are people on the committee every year who would NEVER go for that.

 

[tornado]

Just as they do in the state (IHSA) football playoffs, I think they'll ultimately
expand the NCAA to include every team in D-I that had a winning record.
Then if anyone is left out, tough break, as they really have no legit claim.
But in order to have the tourney include 150-200 teams, there would have to be 32 teams given byes, with 128 teams playing for the final 32 spots (this format would include 160 teams), or the top 64 seeds get the bye, and another 128 play one game to give a total of 128 then who play for the title based on seeding. (This format would use 192 teams).

This would mean an extra round or two but the revenue will help offset the logistical difficulties.

 

[Bravesfan]

I understand the paranoia here but why would the head of the committee--the AD of George Mason University--be out to protect the BCS schools? It makes no sense.

I don't believe for a second that the committee put mid-majors v. mid-majors on purpose to weed them out. No way. One could argue they put majors v. majors to weed THEM out.

The committee is filled with BCS conference people and non-BCS conference people. Do you think when Doug Elgin was on the committee he was told to "look out for the BCS schools?" If so I'm sure he said screw you. Same for the GMU AD, the Horizon League commish, etc.

The individual tourney matchups are the very last thing that gets done on Selection Sunday. I would say one reason you see more mid-major v. mid-major matchups is that now, for the first time, mid-majors are actually HIGHER seeds. Before they were always the lower seed.

Now with the committee and people seeing how good the non-BCS schools are they are getting higher seeds (Drake a 5, Butler a 7)--they of course will play lower seeds who are often times non-BCS schools.

Sorry, no pro-BCS conspiracy. It doesn't make any sense and there are people on the committee every year who would NEVER go for that.

That's an excellent point as well. And last year we had, how many, four or five non-BCS teams that made the Sweet 16? While there are fewer mid-major at large bids (a problem which still needs to be addressed), the one's in the field are higher quality teams that are making inroads through the tournament every year. This is definately a topic that won't go away soon though.

 

[JBinPeoria]

I tend to agree with pretty much every comment in the article. I have to admit that I am really ashamed of Tom O??™Connor, the AD at George Mason, for not doing more to see that decent midmajors were adequetely represented in the NCAA tournament. The only thing I can think of is:

1) Maybe he fell victim to group think biases so that he would fit in with the committee members from bigger schools.

2) Maybe he is kissing BCS butt because he wants a job at a major school.

3) Maybe he and the rest of the committee members are "certifiably insane" as suggested by Seth Greenberg during his press conference after the UNC game.

 

[BradleyBrave]

I tend to agree with pretty much every comment in the article. I have to admit that I am really ashamed of Tom O??™Connor, the AD at George Mason, for not doing more to see that decent midmajors were adequetely represented in the NCAA tournament. The only thing I can think of is:

1) Maybe he fell victim to group think biases so that he would fit in with the committee members from bigger schools.

2) Maybe he is kissing BCS butt because he wants a job at a major school.

3) Maybe he and the rest of the committee members are "certifiably insane" as suggested by Seth Greenberg during his press conference after the UNC game.

I think that there are some under-the-table deals that take place between the people on the committee when it comes to who gets in and who doesn't. It can never be proven, but there are examples of teams that get in that perhaps shouldn't be there but have people on the committee (there's a recent example of this which actually benefited an MVC team). Perhaps some of the BCS reps told the chairman that they'd give Mason some home-and-home games in the future if he voted in favor of 'x' team getting in, etc. With his school already getting an automatic bid, he was pretty much open game for any type of 'deal' since he didn't have to do any lobbying of his own. We'll never know what goes on in the selection room, but I bet we would all be surprised.