TylerDurden wrote:I hope that the additions of Belmont, Murray State and UIC pay off. The potential certainly is there.
Adding programs that consistently have shown to be competitive is a net positive. The league is stronger as an whole with the additions...but, I have my doubts it leads to more at-large bids for a several reasons:
1. Non-power leagues don't get many at-large bids. Outside of the B1G, ACC, SEC, PAC 12, Big 12 and Big East, you're fighting for scraps. The next tier (A10, AAC, MWC, MVC, WCC) are battling for a handful of slots. Who gets those bids has varied over the past 15 years or so, but there's a ceiling. You basically have to hope a power league looks like the ACC does this year to open a few more slots.
2. A more competitive league is likely to mean more losses. Like it or not, we've seen the committee overlook teams in the MVC (and other mid-major leagues) that have incredible computer numbers. Losing to an MVC team that's 22-5 isn't looked at the same as losing to a .500 team in the B1G. One loss is a much bigger deal in the MVC and similar leagues. Nonconference games are must-win games in order to offset an increase in conference losses. Lose in the non-con and, well, we all know what happens.
3. Transitions don't always go well. There are several examples and tons of factors, but you'd have a hard time arguing that Butler wasn't a more relevant program when they were kicking the crap out of the Horizon League. Sometimes things go well. I'd call Creighton's move a success, but Wichita State isn't trending the same way (yes, I know Gregg got himself fired for being the ass he is). Someone has to finish in last place and you can't assume the results translate from league-to-league over the long term.
4. Power leagues are stronger. Yes, the ACC is pretty much trash this year outside of Duke, but the SEC is as strong as it's every been. The B1G is loaded; the Big 12 has some big dogs and the Big East is very strong. The PAC 12 is on an upswing as well.
5. The financial gaps aren't getting smaller. Dollars matter and without big TV deals (they aren't coming) the financial disparities continue to grow.
None of this means that the MVC can't get multiple bids on a regular basis, only that nothing can be assumed. The Valley needs to 1) Continue to win games in the tournament; 2) avoid the worst case scenario of bids staying the same and having to feed 12 instead of 10. Do that and the kids are okay.
"THIS". It was always my contention that while favoring the additions of Belmont and Murray St, the thinking that it would make us a multi bid league beyond what we do now was faulty. We will always have a chance at muti bids , but it comes down to noncon schedules and performing well against them. We just don't get credit for beating each other, and the opportunities in the noncon continue to get harder to schedule. Doesn't minimize the additions of the new schools, those were smart, solid adds. But the landscape for mid majors continues to be tilted against them, and if you listen to the top guys from the P-5 conferences, they want it tilted more. The NCAA will cave one way or the other , they're just too weak and fearful of the power and influence the P-5's wield with the television industry . It's a sticky wicket because of the popularity of the NCAA Men's BB tourney, but they will get their way . Really already have in so many ways. Think about small indicators like the P-5 making up only about 20% of the D-1 field, but routinely having 50% + representation on the selection committee. Think about how 80% plus of the dollars distributed by the NCAA Tourney going to the P-5's.
In pro sports they recognize how to at least attempt to maintain competitive integrity and a level playing field,but none of those things are done by the NCAA, in fact quite the opposite. Now some things aren't possible that pros routinely do; the pros ensure distribution of talent by the draft , can't do that, the pros ensure some level of equality thru standardize scheduling, can't do that. To me the biggest area the biggest way the NCAA discriminates against the non p-5's is thru how NCAA funds are distributed . The pros have levels of revenue sharing ; the opportunity for that is there by simply fairly and equitably distributing the dollars generated by the NCAA tourney across all D-1 programs. Once you pay for the travel and associated per team costs for participating in the tourney, there is no reason that the rest of the funds shouldn't be equally distributed across all membership. Have never heard a justification for why it's not, given unequal distribution is contrary to the stated goals and standards the NCAA exposes for members. Again keep in mind the purpose of the NCAA; rewarding institutions that already have all the scheduling advantages, all the recruiting advantages, and tons more avenues for already developing alternate funding , with almost all the $$$ generated by the NCAA's #1 source of revenue is just ludicrous if you really want any semblance of equal opportunity for all members. It self perpetuates the class system that now exists, and it's just getting worse.
It really is a system totally skewed against anyone outside the P-5 and it's simplistic in it's design and implementation. Design a selection system that is based as much on opportunity as performance, knowing opportunity is not equal. Design a system that is not transparent and is orchestrated by a subjective
committee process that has an unbalanced member composition. Tie all the revenue to who gets selected to participate in a tourney that has unequal means for members accessing it, ensuring they have NCAA supplemented advantages beyond all the individual institutional ones they already have. Simple, effective, and yet they aren't happy because Stony Brook might get some $$$ they want in their league coffers.
The Bear is the largest carnivore on the North American continent; beware the Bear!
