Huggins plan

[XU-PA]

From espn blogs, Huggins proposing a sub level division.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/4524/huggins-has-a-radical-idea

[Masterofreality]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

[xubrew]

"That's what they have to do in football. You have to make a commitment to have a football program. It's attendance and facilities and so forth. If we did that, instead of having 347 teams, we'd maybe have 110 or 150.


actually, the subdivisions are really just about deciding whether you want 85 full scholarships, or up to 52 partial scholarships. facilities don't really have anything to do with it, and although there are parameters for attendance in place, that really has nothing to do with it either. there is no point to having subdvisions in any other sport.

[theprofessor]

Oh yeah, it is terrible that we have to watch 16, 15, and 14 seeds in the ncaa tournament. It's a travesty that big east schools that go 17-13 don't get a chance to play in the tourney while some small school like Hampton gets the chance to pull off an upset. It would be so much better if only the bcs schools and a few other top schools got to play in the tourney.

Please... college basketball is the one NCAA post season that everyone gets excited about. Now, I would do away with the play-in game (sorry dayton), or have a set of at-large teams (12 seeds) play for right to advance to the main draw. But, overall March Madness is great and should be left as is.

[stophorseabuse]

says the man who puked on his car door.

[stophorseabuse]

If your going to have tournaments with everybody invited why play the f'n regular season. Even if it made for a better tournament (which it wouldn't), it destroys the regular season and conference tourneys.

Every D-1 team other than independents and the IVY is basically a member of the ncaa tourney--called the conference tourney.

If we were to somehow expand the tourney, F the BCS getting their 11th place teams in, let the conference regular season and tournament champions both get auto bids.

But please, for the love of God, college bball is the best thing going anywhere, Change NOTHING.

[pizza delivery]

While I generally agree, change nothing, if they do change anything, I'd be in favor of this sub division idea more so than expanding to 96 teams. When you're talking about the last 100 teams of 347, you're not talking about much at all.

There should be performance eligibility requirements and if teams in the lower division want in the upper division then there can be spots available yearly, while other teams drop down (Fordham). Kind of like soccer, I guess.

64/250 = 25% of teams in postseason, which is more representative of a postseason in other sports

This nonsense about 64/347 is not right. Centenary is not a D-1 caliber team. They are worse than the Pirates are to the Yankees, or Lions to the Patriots, etc. Centenary would lose 1000/1000 games vs Kansas. Not in the same division.

[pizza delivery]

I just read the Huggins idea, and that is wet-brained.

[X-band '01]

Coach Huggins, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[stophorseabuse]

Here's the deal though, the little schools know the odds at this division. They want this challenge. They don't have to be D-1. Some schools currently live to be the Hampton that shocks a 2 seed, but they aspire to eventually turn into, I don't know, Xavier.

[chico]

Says the man who has never beaten a higher seeded team.

Someone has to tell BeelzeBob to stop drinking before 10 a.m.

Are there any coaches outside the Big East bitching about the tournament set-up?

[xubrew]

While I generally agree, change nothing, if they do change anything, I'd be in favor of this sub division idea more so than expanding to 96 teams. When you're talking about the last 100 teams of 347, you're not talking about much at all.

There should be performance eligibility requirements and if teams in the lower division want in the upper division then there can be spots available yearly, while other teams drop down (Fordham). Kind of like soccer, I guess.

64/250 = 25% of teams in postseason, which is more representative of a postseason in other sports

This nonsense about 64/347 is not right. Centenary is not a D-1 caliber team. They are worse than the Pirates are to the Yankees, or Lions to the Patriots, etc. Centenary would lose 1000/1000 games vs Kansas. Not in the same division.

centenary is moving down to div3 after this season.

it's more about scholarships than it is about how good a team is. in div1, it is up to 13 full scholarships (no partial scholarships allowed). in div2 it is up to ten scholarships, full or partial. that's really the only technical difference. the better teams in div2 would probably easily win leagues like the northeast conference, southland, atlantic sun, etc. they would easily finish in the rpi top 200. north dakota state, who was merely decent in div2, won the summit league the first year they were eligible to win it. still, if a school wants to offer 13 full scholarships, that's their right. they really aren't hurting anyone but themselves. i don't think njit or centenary is doing anything to drag down the top programs in the big east or acc. yeah, they suck, but that's their problem.

[Juice]

The Big East has more coaches complaining about the current tournament format than all of the other conferences combined.

[BandAid]

The Big East has more coaches complaining about the current tournament format than all of the other conferences combined.

BTW - West Virginia dropped one hard today against UConn. A Big East "powerhouse" losing handily to a Big East "bubble team". I'm not saying this doesn't happen elsewhere (see X @ UD, not saying we are a powerhouse this year, just an example), but why does this seem to happen multiple times every year in the Big East? West Virginia doesn't loses anything, meanwhile UConn gets a huge boost towards the good side of the bubble.

[pizza delivery]

centenary is moving down to div3 after this season.

it's more about scholarships than it is about how good a team is. in div1, it is up to 13 full scholarships (no partial scholarships allowed). in div2 it is up to ten scholarships, full or partial. that's really the only technical difference. the better teams in div2 would probably easily win leagues like the northeast conference, southland, atlantic sun, etc. they would easily finish in the rpi top 200. north dakota state, who was merely decent in div2, won the summit league the first year they were eligible to win it. still, if a school wants to offer 13 full scholarships, that's their right. they really aren't hurting anyone but themselves. i don't think njit or centenary is doing anything to drag down the top programs in the big east or acc. yeah, they suck, but that's their problem.

Doesn't hurt unless the 347 number is used to justify expanding the tourney. 347 is disingenuous. It's really closer to what b-bob said, but I'm happy to have 200-250 teams mixing it up. That's the sphere of competition as far as I'm concerned. Bring up NKU, send down Fordham.

[PM Thor]

The Big East has more coaches complaining about the current tournament format than all of the other conferences combined.

It is the best conference, no doubt. But saying that, it also means that teams that would be very good in other conferences are getting shellacked in conference. Of course they are going to bitch.

It's the first shot across the bow in terms of the death of the Big East. It will just take time.

[_LH]

I have been suggesting contraction of Division I for years. 250 should be the max. You could cut 10-15 leagues right off the bat that never produce wins in the NCAA Tournament. That would eliminate 150 or so school (pretenders) from DI and open up 10-15 at large spots allowing the tournament to stay at 64 teams.

[Titanxman04]

Here's my deal on the whole tournament thing (for those with common sense, just skip over what I write like you normally do).

I was listening to that Brew guy on 700 WLW... Some asswipe from Clifton called in, d a raving about how great it would be to expand to 96. Brew agreed. One of their arguments for this was that Cornell could not win the IVY by a close margin and still not get in, and what a shame that would be.

Personally, I would think Cornell would be in anyways. Not like they've had a huge drop off or anything. They lost a game and got challenge another, correct? Gotta think Cornell is in one way or another.

Their second arguement was similar. Claiming that lets say the regular season champ of the MAC lost in the tournament and thus wouldn't be dancing. They said thats terrible and that that particular school would be cheated out of their hard work. Therefore, expanding would give a chance for those other schools..

Here's a newflash... The MAC isn't that good. I'm from MAC country (Bowling Green) and I always want that conference to do well. But lets be honest, no way in hell do they deserve to have two bids right now.

The arguments can be made about the Sun Belt, the Big South, and other smaller conferences too. It cheapens the meaning behind being in the tournament. If we expand to 96, lets just go to 128, hmm? Then lets double that. And eventually, lets just let all of D-I play in the tournament... Heavens to Betsy if a conference tournament shall be made meaningless within a decade or two.
----------

In regard to Huggins? He's a fat dumb idiot, I don't think many on here would dispute that. Why in God's name is he wearing a track suit every game while the rest of his staff wear suits?

His idea is stupid. I love watching those 16 v 1 games. I cannot wait for the day when that upset happens. I'll be watching the whole thing. That's what makes the tournament great. When we were in Lexington, I hung out with some Central Conn. State fans. They were thrilled to go get their asses kicked by OSU. But they also had hope, which was a beautiful thing to see as a fan. I think the tournament would just suck Huggins' nuts if we lost those teams... And who wants that?

[Titanxman04]

I have been suggesting contraction of Division I for years. 250 should be the max. You could cut 10-15 leagues right off the bat that never produce wins in the NCAA Tournament. That would eliminate 150 or so school (pretenders) from DI and open up 10-15 at large spots allowing the tournament to stay at 64 teams.

I disagree. Just for going to this tournament, these conferences make money. A win in the tournament a couple of years ago was worth over $800k for the conference. You get, I believe, about 200k for your conference just for showing up. For those smaller schools, thats huge.

[theprofessor]

I disagree. Just for going to this tournament, these conferences make money. A win in the tournament a couple of years ago was worth over $800k for the conference. You get, I believe, about 200k for your conference just for showing up. For those smaller schools, thats huge.

I don't think the ncaa owes small schools an opportunity to make money, but the fact is that the tourney is infinitely more interesting with underdogs facing high seeds. If we replaced those underdogs with 10-15 more slots for major schools (say, UC and others with 18-13 records) the tourney just wouldn't be as fun to watch.

[xsteve1]

I have been suggesting contraction of Division I for years. 250 should be the max. You could cut 10-15 leagues right off the bat that never produce wins in the NCAA Tournament. That would eliminate 150 or so school (pretenders) from DI and open up 10-15 at large spots allowing the tournament to stay at 64 teams.

I agree that 347 is way too many D1 schools. Now what the number should be. Thats for another debate.

[chico]

I think you need to keep the smaller schools in. The only way these teams get a shot at a top team is to play them on the road. A Kansas will never visit Prairie View A&M. In the tourney they get to at least face them on a neutral court. Plus, a number 1 seed should get some benefit from having a great season - they get a virtual cupcake in the first round.

Besides, when has a 12 or 13 seed advanced to the Final 4? Are these fringe teams like UC really going to benefit from opening up the tourney to more teams? And if we cut down the D-1 schools and let pretty much every "new" D-1 school in the tourney then what good is the regular season, and what good are conferences? Let's just throw everyone together and let a computer determine who we play because the regular season will mean nothing anyhow. What's the criteria going to be for entry into D-1? Attendance? Size of your arena? Financial commitment?

The system as it stands right now is about as good as it gets. The little guys get their one shot, pretty much every deserving team makes it in, there's a lively discussion about who didn't make it and who should have. Best of all for the NCAA, it's a freaking cash cow. People love March Madness - they love the underdog stories and they love the overload of games. And at the end of the day the National Champ is usually a team everyone thought should be there in the first place - there are no more Villanova's or NC State's. Why mess with it.

[Titanxman04]

I agree that 347 is way too many D1 schools. Now what the number should be. Thats for another debate.

Quite a tough decision to make and difficult to draw a line. At that point, it's not easy to seperate which teams remain involved and which don't.


I don't think the ncaa owes small schools an opportunity to make money, but the fact is that the tourney is infinitely more interesting with underdogs facing high seeds. If we replaced those underdogs with 10-15 more slots for major schools (say, UC and others with 18-13 records) the tourney just wouldn't be as fun to watch.

We must agree to disagree here, friend. The NCAA is a voluntary community of schools. Xavier, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Middle Tenn. State don't have to be a part of this organization. However, these schools choose to be a part of the NCAA and follow their guidelines.

Also keep in mind, that a very small minority of athletic departments throughout the country actually operate in the black. Athletic Departments are supposed to be non-profit organizations, and its actually the goal of an AD to come out with a balanced budget and have minimal gains. To come out on top, would indicate to school administrators that money can be taken away from the AD and put towards other uses.

Now, for schools like OSU, Michigan, Florida, etc.. Thats no issue. Football and basketball take care of plenty of their other non-income sports. Xavier only has men's basketball to really fund the rest of their athletics, especially when they go deep in the tourny. While their tournament money gets split amongst the conferences, Xavier still gets a bigger piece of the pie.

For smaller schools like, our friends at Portland State... While I don't know much about their athletic department or whether or not they have football, chances are their sports don't do much to cover their costs of operating. To their credit, I doubt that have a 90,000 seat stadium, but they also need the occasional boost for participating. Grant it, "Buy Games" also contribute a great deal. But those games would mean even less and would be non-existent if these schools were to drop out of the NCAA. Aren't regular season games supposed to only be with schools within your division? Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

So where's my argument going, you ask?

The NCAA's mission statement includes the ideals of the "pursuit of excellance academically and athletically". It also says,

"Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

To offer some schools within their membership money and not others isn't following their mission statement. Now that's how I read it.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20The%20NCAA/Overview/mission.html

Check it out for yourself, you may interpret it another way. But fact is, these smaller schools build up the NCAA to what it is. It's a slippery slope to eliminate schools or cut them out of the NCAA budget. Just because a 16 seed hasn't won a game in the tournament, doesn't mean it won't ever happen.

In summation, I think the NCAA owes these schools a great deal, and it's not their place to kick a school out of the NCAA without major violations... I'd enjoy a discussion on this though. I hope I've made sense throughout, though, I struggle at that from time to time. :D

[Titanxman04]

To Chico's point...

The George Mason Run was amazing. No doubt that just makes the tournament that much better. Ever since then, we've been asking who will make this year's run. Probably one of the better stories ever in that tournament, especially in today's game. Davidson made quite a run as a 10 seed as well with Steph Curry.

It's not going to happen every year. But even the mere prospect of it happening once a decade is worth keeping these teams in.

[DC Muskie]

The Big East has more coaches complaining about the current tournament format than all of the other conferences combined.

No kidding. I wish they would all shut up.

How exactly is it hard to manage 347 teams? Has Huggins attempted to do this?

[xubrew]

I disagree. Just for going to this tournament, these conferences make money. A win in the tournament a couple of years ago was worth over $800k for the conference. You get, I believe, about 200k for your conference just for showing up. For those smaller schools, thats huge.

that's old information. the figures have been higher for several years, and are likely to increase again very soon. basically the current payouts to the conferences are $1.2 million per team, per game. in other words, if the big sky puts one team in the ncaa tournament that is eliminated in the first round, the league gets $1.2 million. if that team wins a game and makes the second round, they get $2.4 mill. if the atlantic ten gets five teams in, three make the second round, two make the sweet sixteen, and one makes the elite eight, that's $13.2 million net gain for just the game. that doesn't include the money that is made off of ticket sales. travel expenses are also covered by the ncaa, so schools don't have to worry about subtracting that from the total amount.

expanding the tournament would mean more teams get in, but that they'd have to share the pie more ways, so some of the smaller conferences would actually end up with less money.

one of the reasons i'm against a subdivision is because every now and then a weak conference produces a good team. the socon was terrible, and would have undoubtedly been included among the leagues that were relegated down, but davidson was not. the ohio valley and ivy are almost always terrible, but this year we have murray state and cornell, two good teams that could make a splash in the ncaa tournament. if there were subdivisions it is unlikely they would be given a chance to make the field this year due to how weak their leagues generally are. bucknell made the second round two years ago. so did pacific. both leagues were among the six or seven worst in the ncaas in the years that it happened.

i think we've reached the cap now. it used to be that moving up to div1 included filling out the paperwork and a fee of $15,000. as of now there is a moratorium preventing anyone else from moving up to div1. once that moratorium is lifted, the new fee will likely be $1 million, AND a team will also most likely have to have conference affilliation. the days of seeing four and five and even ten teams jump to div1 every year are over. i don't think div1 is going to get substantially bigger anytime soon. i think it's the number of conferences that they're really trying to keep in check. the number of teams has grown, but the number of conferences really hasn't. i believe there were 28 or 29 in 1985, and there are only 32 now. that includes the brand new great west, which needs to stay together for five years in order to be eligibile for an automatic bid. there are more teams in those conferences, but it isn't as if ncaa div1 is any harder to manage today than it was twenty years ago.


How exactly is it hard to manage 347 teams? Has Huggins attempted to do this?

no kidding. it really isn't that hard to manage. div3 seems to manage it's 480 teams just fine.

[Titanxman04]

I don't think anything should change with the tournament. I'm against tournament expansion. It's being made a big deal not from the smaller conferences, but the UC's and UD's of the world, who are on the bubble and just out every year, and know they'd be in for sure if they didn't suck so much.

I know my figures were a bit off or low, but nonetheless, it goes to show you the money involved.

[XU-PA]

Money is a big reason why this would not work. In addition to declining a chance at the riches from NCAA participation, it would also take those lower half teams out of the guaranteed money business. By lining up for the chance to play say Kansas, teams like Hofstra, Tennesee Tech, Oakland, Central Arkansas, Alcorn State, Radford, and Belmont get some nice cash in the early part of the season, and get to tell their recruits about the big stage they'll get to play on.
Split those teams off to a 1-AA and the big timers won't get their easy early season scrimmages. I'd assume that much like a game vs a D-2 team, one against the sub conference either would not count in RPI SOS computation, or would have to count less than a 1-A win.

[_LH]

I disagree. Just for going to this tournament, these conferences make money. A win in the tournament a couple of years ago was worth over $800k for the conference. You get, I believe, about 200k for your conference just for showing up. For those smaller schools, thats huge.

Why do I care if some SWAC schools get $800K from tbe NCAA. They don't belong. The should not have been let in, in the first place.

[Juice]

i think we've reached the cap now. it used to be that moving up to div1 included filling out the paperwork and a fee of $15,000. as of now there is a moratorium preventing anyone else from moving up to div1. once that moratorium is lifted, the new fee will likely be $1 million, AND a team will also most likely have to have conference affilliation. the days of seeing four and five and even ten teams jump to div1 every year are over. i don't think div1 is going to get substantially bigger anytime soon. i think it's the number of conferences that they're really trying to keep in check. the number of teams has grown, but the number of conferences really hasn't. i believe there were 28 or 29 in 1985, and there are only 32 now. that includes the brand new great west, which needs to stay together for five years in order to be eligibile for an automatic bid. there are more teams in those conferences, but it isn't as if ncaa div1 is any harder to manage today than it was twenty years ago.


The only change I would be willing to accept would be to add another play in game or bring the total to 4 for at most 68 teams. Say the Great West does stay together for 5 years then that is another automatic bid added at the expense of an at large team because of a bootleg conference that is called the Great west but one of its teams is located in New Jersey (I know that SLU or Xavier aren't anywhere close to the Atlantic Ocean).

68 would be the largest number I think the NCAA could enlarge the tournament while still keeping the basic framework of what makes it so great.

[Masterofreality]

If the atlantic ten gets five teams in, three make the second round, two make the sweet sixteen, and one makes the elite eight, that's $13.2 million net gain for just the game. that doesn't include the money that is made off of ticket sales. travel expenses are also covered by the ncaa, so schools don't have to worry about subtracting that from the total amount.


...And F-m and LaSuck have taken every damn one of their allocated dimes while contributing zero.

[xu05usmc]

To be entirely honest I would fully expect the NCAA to adopt this model in the near future. With Ed O'Bannon's pending lawsuit and growing cynicism about "recruitment" and "gifts" being given to top flight recruits and players, as well as a growing number of people speaking out about the big money being made by the NCAA (and conferences) it is just a matter of time before teams start paying players (more than they already are).

In that case I can see there being a split between teams that will pay their players and teams that will keep the more "traditional" quasi-amateurism the NCAA allegedly endorses.

All that said I've always been a proponent of cutting out conference tournaments and having one big tournament at the end. Perhaps give regular season conference champions a bye to the Final 31. And try to schedule somewhat regional games, use the RPI or other computer ranking system to determine home court, ect. We can build on that.

[pizza delivery]

Here are the Kenpom rating of last year's 10-16 seeds in the tourney, which illustrates that teams entering the tourney are rarely above 200th in a given year:

#10 Minnesota Big Ten 22–10 At-large 51
#11 Virginia Commonwealth Colonial 24–9 Tournament Winner 53
#12 Wisconsin Big Ten 19–12 At-large 29
#13 Portland State Big Sky 23–9 Tournament Winner 125
#14 American Patriot 24–7 Tournament Winner 108
#15 Binghamton America East 23–8 Tournament Winner 165
#16 East Tennessee State Atlantic Sun 23–10 Tournament Winner 111
#10 Maryland ACC 20–13 At-large 54
#11 Utah State WAC 30–4 Tournament Winner 57
#12 Northern Iowa Missouri Valley 23–10 Tournament Winner 81
#13 Mississippi State SEC 23–12 Tournament Winner 61
#14 Cornell Ivy League 21–9 Regular season Champion 104
#15 Cal State-Northridge Big West 17–13 Tournament Winner 99
#16 Chattanooga Southern 18–16 Tournament Winner 226
#10 USC Pac-10 21–12 Tournament Winner 26
#11 Dayton Atlantic 10 26–7 At-large 78
#12 Arizona Pac-10 19–13 At-large 41
#13 Cleveland State Horizon 25–10 Tournament Winner 60
#14 North Dakota State Summit 26–6 Tournament Winner 65
#15 Robert Morris Northeast 24–10 Tournament Winner 118
#16 Alabama State SWAC 22–9 Tournament Winner 209
Morehead State OVC 19–15 Tournament Winner 150
#10 Michigan Big Ten 20–13 At-large 50
#11 Temple Atlantic 10 22–11 Tournament Winner 47
#12 Western Kentucky Sun Belt 24–8 Tournament Winner 89
#13 Akron Mid-American 23–12 Tournament Winner 92
#14 Stephen F. Austin Southland 24–7 Tournament Winner 98
#15 Morgan State MEAC 23–11 Tournament Winner 148
#16 Radford Big South 21–11 Tournament Winner 188

Granted, many of these teams come from the crappy conferences that would be getting axed up for the sub division, therefore we possibly wouldn't get to enjoy seeing them (or whoever randomly wins the conf tourney) in the brackets.

However, if you look at the bottom 16 conferences http://kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2009&c=SWAC, try to remember how many of these teams made a mark. You've got Davidson, etc., but even Davidson constantly finishes in the top 200 at least. They done been committed to ball, man!

In my thinking, there would obviously be some conference re-alignment and certain teams from the worst of conferences would be safe from the sub division if they so choose - if they're committed. There are more than enough geographical circumstances to do away with at least 7 or 8 conferences in d 1 and still have your favorites like Appy St, or perhaps even that chippy little team from Towson.

Point is, if a team has been to the tourney, they've tried to get there. They've put in years of work and earned it. Let's trim the fat, the leeches like Fordham who just collect checks.

[pizza delivery]

Beyond this, you can always accept entries from the lower level and demote failing programs every year based on 5 year rolling averages.