Midmajors Deserve Better--New York Times article

[SB Shock]

With all the frustration surrounding why the non-power conferences get unbalanced love, I became curious about the selection process, including the selection committee.

The committee consists of 10 members, which includes a chairman. The committee members serve 5-year terms, with between 1 & 3 old members rotating out and the same number rotating in every year. The committee maintains geographical balance, with no fewer than two members representing the East, Midwest, South and West regions at any one time.

My expectation was the committee would be dominated by the power conferences. Then I could blame the entire process on this "Goliath" mentality. To my surprise the breakdown looks like this:

Daniel Guerrero (chairman) - AD, UCLA; Eugene Smith - AD, Ohio State; Laing Kennedy - AD, Kent State; Stanley Morrison - AD, UC-Riverside; Jeffrey Hathaway - AD, UConn; Lynn Hickey - AD UT-San Antonio; Mike Bobinski - AD, Xavier; Dan Beebe - Commissioner, Big 12; Doug Fullerton - Commissioner, Big Sky; Ron Wellman - AD, Wake Forest

It is an even split, 5-5, David's vs. Goliath's. We know the Goliath's politic hard for the their middle of the pack, .500 conference record teams, over a second place, 25-win team from a conference we will call the MVC. I get that. But where is the balance of voice fighting for David.

I think the committee, from a quick & initial view, has done the right thing placing good conference balance in the membership. Come on David's...although 8 mid-major at large berths this year are the highest in several years, your voice apparently needs to resonate much stronger. Not that I expect the David's to only advocate the non-power conference teams. I want them to be fair and equitable and get the most deserving 65 teams possible...but at the same time they must fight for their own when the fight is right.

Oh well, enough rant...time to take my meds and go to bed. The hall monitor at the care home is coming down the hall. Good night!!!

How smart can people with the names like EUGENE, LAING or STANLEY be.

2nd why AD's? What really make you think they are qualified to make these selections?

[Shockra]

I heard they were going to expand to more than 96 teams: http://www.theonion.com/video/ncaa-e...6-teams,14317/ Hey, at least Emporia State makes the tourney. :lol:

[ShockTalk]

With all the frustration surrounding why the non-power conferences get unbalanced love, I became curious about the selection process, including the selection committee.

The committee consists of 10 members, which includes a chairman. The committee members serve 5-year terms, with between 1 & 3 old members rotating out and the same number rotating in every year. The committee maintains geographical balance, with no fewer than two members representing the East, Midwest, South and West regions at any one time.

My expectation was the committee would be dominated by the power conferences. Then I could blame the entire process on this "Goliath" mentality. To my surprise the breakdown looks like this:

Daniel Guerrero (chairman) - AD, UCLA; Eugene Smith - AD, Ohio State; Laing Kennedy - AD, Kent State; Stanley Morrison - AD, UC-Riverside; Jeffrey Hathaway - AD, UConn; Lynn Hickey - AD UT-San Antonio; Mike Bobinski - AD, Xavier; Dan Beebe - Commissioner, Big 12; Doug Fullerton - Commissioner, Big Sky; Ron Wellman - AD, Wake Forest

It is an even split, 5-5, David's vs. Goliath's. We know the Goliath's politic hard for the their middle of the pack, .500 conference record teams, over a second place, 25-win team from a conference we will call the MVC. I get that. But where is the balance of voice fighting for David.

I think the committee, from a quick & initial view, has done the right thing placing good conference balance in the membership. Come on David's...although 8 mid-major at large berths this year are the highest in several years, your voice apparently needs to resonate much stronger. Not that I expect the David's to only advocate the non-power conference teams. I want them to be fair and equitable and get the most deserving 65 teams possible...but at the same time they must fight for their own when the fight is right.

Oh well, enough rant...time to take my meds and go to bed. The hall monitor at the care home is coming down the hall. Good night!!!

Even split, yes. Balanced, no. Last time I looked, there were 6 BCS conferences and 26 non-BCS. Perhaps there should only be 2 BCS reps.

[ShockTalk]

I've said before that expansion will not help the non-BCS schools unless a number of restrictive rules for participation are included. Adding 32 teams will mean that an additional 12-18 BCS teams will also get in. That will actually increase the percentage of BCS teams from what it is now.

HCGM is in favor of expanding to 96 teams.

Did you always agree with your father and mother as well?

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I didn't say one way or the other whether I agreed with HGCM on expanding to 96 teams.

Sorry. Thought there might have been a reason for you stating that. Didn't know you were merely pointing out info that had previously been talked about on SN, so I thought you might be making an opinion on a fan opinion board.

So....do you like or dislike the 96 team idea and why?

[1979Shocker]

I've said before that expansion will not help the non-BCS schools unless a number of restrictive rules for participation are included. Adding 32 teams will mean that an additional 12-18 BCS teams will also get in. That will actually increase the percentage of BCS teams from what it is now.

HCGM is in favor of expanding to 96 teams.

Did you always agree with your father and mother as well?

You must have me mixed up with someone else. I didn't say one way or the other whether I agreed with HGCM on expanding to 96 teams.

Sorry. Thought there might have been a reason for you stating that. Didn't know you were merely pointing out info that had previously been talked about on SN, so I thought you might be making an opinion on a fan opinion board.

So....do you like or dislike the 96 team idea and why?

I wouldn't rule out going to 96, but if they would put some restrictions on who can get in to the current 65-team field, I'd be satisified with the way it is.

One restriction, which others have mentioned in the past, would be to not allow teams in with sub-.500 conference records.

[shocker3]

I've said before that expansion will not help the non-BCS schools unless a number of restrictive rules for participation are included. Adding 32 teams will mean that an additional 12-18 BCS teams will also get in. That will actually increase the percentage of BCS teams from what it is now.

But it will increase the PERCENTAGE OF AT LARGE TEAMS FROM THE NON-BCS CONFERENCES.

That increase in AT-LARGE non-BCS teams will very likely all come from the following conferences: MWC, A-10, MVC, WAC, C-USA, CAA, WCC.

These conferences stand to be the biggest winners from an expansion to 96. The one bid conferences will still get one bid and the BCS conferences will get a few more than they do now but so will we.

Going from a one bid conference annually (as we have been for the last 3 years) to a 2-4 bid conference annually is HUGE for us.

[ShockerFever]

But also we will then have to win 3 games to make it to the Sweet 16 and get any sort of notoriety instead of just 2.

Again, it should be the most deserving teams that get a chance to play for the national championship. Also worth repeating.. it's an elite tournament for a reason. It should be hard to get into the field for a reason.

Not to mention it would turn office pools and filling out brackets into nightmares.. :shock:

[shocker3]

But also we will then have to win 3 games to make it to the Sweet 16 and get any sort of notoriety instead of just 2.

Again, it should be the most deserving teams that get a chance to play for the national championship. Also worth repeating.. it's an elite tournament for a reason. It should be hard to get into the field for a reason.

Not to mention it would turn office pools and filling out brackets into nightmares.. :shock:

If the committee went back to treating non-BCS teams fairer I would agree with you. That would be the ideal situation. But I don't think we will ever see 12 Non-BCS at-large teams in the dance again as long as it is just a 65 team event.

I think the 4 teams of last year will be the norm (this year's 8 teams I fear is just an odd occurrence because the PAC 10 did so poorly in the non-con this year).

I just don't like our chances to get at-large bids any more under the current system.

[WSUShokker]

I heard they were going to expand to more than 96 teams: http://www.theonion.com/video/ncaa-e...6-teams,14317/ Hey, at least Emporia State makes the tourney. :lol:

Coach Slaymaker might come out of retirement for that

[WSUShokker]

Ive seen reports that its happening and I believe its coming ....I have yet to see any kind of format whether its bye's in the first round or 4 brackets of 24 or whatever it is...does anyone know what the idea is?

[vancedave56]

OK, here's some off the wall thinking. Maybe it's all psychological.

Instead of calling each league's post season tourney the "league post season tourney," call it the the NCAA tournament.

In that case, we are all in the NCAA tournament. The problems is, some conferences must win or at least finish 2nd in this tournament to continue.

Other conferences (mainly BCS), teams can finish up to 6th or 7th and still continue in the NCAA tournament. There is a problem.

So, that being said, why not do away with the league post season tournaments and just go straight into the NCAA tournament? (Yes, the conferences would likely lose money).

Just come up with some computer ranking (RPI or whatever) and seed the teams accordingly (take the human element out of the equation) - maybe have midweek games of "play-in" games to narrow the field to 256. :shock:

1st week thur/fri games take the field down to 128
1st week sat/sun games take the field down to 64

2nd week thur/fri games take the field down to 32
2nd week sat/sun games take the field down to the sweet 16 :roll:

...and so on.

[ripemupshocks]

I've said before that expansion will not help the non-BCS schools unless a number of restrictive rules for participation are included. Adding 32 teams will mean that an additional 12-18 BCS teams will also get in. That will actually increase the percentage of BCS teams from what it is now.

But it will increase the PERCENTAGE OF AT LARGE TEAMS FROM THE NON-BCS CONFERENCES.

That increase in AT-LARGE non-BCS teams will very likely all come from the following conferences: MWC, A-10, MVC, WAC, C-USA, CAA, WCC.

These conferences stand to be the biggest winners from an expansion to 96. The one bid conferences will still get one bid and the BCS conferences will get a few more than they do now but so will we.

Going from a one bid conference annually (as we have been for the last 3 years) to a 2-4 bid conference annually is HUGE for us.

I must be slow on the uptake, so help me out. Are you saying, with expansion, the MVC will get more than one team in, even though the MVC is a one bid conference? Or, are you saying the MVC will still only get one team in, because the MVC is a one bid conference?

[ripemupshocks]

The number of teams in the tournament isn't the only problem, (for the record, I'm opposed to expansion). There is also a seeding problem. The lower seed won 10 of the 32 first round games. And they won 6 of the 16 second round games. Of course I realize much of that can be blamed on the Big Least Conference, but not all of it. So not only did the selection committee put teams in that shouldn't be in, but based on the 30% to 40% win rate of the lower seeds in the first two rounds, they also seeded many of the teams incorrectly.

How is it that a committee holed-up in a hotel for three days, working 24 hours a day, with no sleep, having their food and drink trucked in and fed to them intravenously while staring with bloodshot eyes at computer monitors while working diligently to make sure only the best of the best of the best get in, AND, are properly seeded, still seem to get it so wrong? Because many of their selections are influenced by team names. Until you take team names out of the selection process, it doesn't matter how big you make the tournament, you will still have problems with inclusion and seeding.

[The Mad Hatter]

Ive seen reports that its happening and I believe its coming ....I have yet to see any kind of format whether its bye's in the first round or 4 brackets of 24 or whatever it is...does anyone know what the idea is?

24 team brackets would not work.

Start: 24

1 Game: 12

2 Games: 6

3 Games: 3

[HockeyShock]

Ive seen reports that its happening and I believe its coming ....I have yet to see any kind of format whether its bye's in the first round or 4 brackets of 24 or whatever it is...does anyone know what the idea is?

24 team brackets would not work.

Start: 24

1 Game: 12

2 Games: 6

3 Games: 3

I imagine that the 1-8 seeds in each corner of the bracket would get the bye, while the 9- and lower seeds would be paired up. That would put 24 teams in each corner: 24*4 = 96.

Interesting thought: If the 9-seed plays the 24-seed, and the winner of that goes on to play the 1-seed, it would actually result in a more difficult 1st game for the 1-seed. What would probably happen would be that the winner of the 16-17 game would play the 1-seed.

Imagine the griping that will take place about which teams got 7-8 seeds and which teams get 9-10 seeds and have to play the extra round. It'll make this year look like a minor squabble.

:clap: :wsu_posters: :yahoo: :clap: