MVC Should Get In on The Alliance

[BEARZ77]

The reason i say all should share equally in the tourney revenue is the product is College basketball, not the specific teams. And i know those dollars are not what some of the other tv contracts are, but still it's money that is generated by NCAA basketball and should benefit all 300+ teams equally after paying the participants expenses. The TV contract for the tourney is with the NCAA, not specific teams.

[Red]

The reason i say all should share equally in the tourney revenue is the product is College basketball, not the specific teams. And i know those dollars are not what some of the other tv contracts are, but still it's money that is generated by NCAA basketball and should benefit all 300+ teams equally after paying the participants expenses. The TV contract for the tourney is with the NCAA, not specific teams.

You couldn't be more wrong. The tournament is "the specific teams" and not all of "college basketball". It is a tournament of 64 (now 68) teams.

In MLB, for example, teams and players get a "playoff share" if their teams make the playoffs due to the added television revenue. That is separate and distinct from their salaries/revenue from the regular season TV deals. Essentially, this is what the NCAA tournament is. The conferences have received their regular season "salary" and the tournament proceeds are their "playoff share".

[BEARZ77]

The reason i say all should share equally in the tourney revenue is the product is College basketball, not the specific teams. And i know those dollars are not what some of the other tv contracts are, but still it's money that is generated by NCAA basketball and should benefit all 300+ teams equally after paying the participants expenses. The TV contract for the tourney is with the NCAA, not specific teams.

You couldn't be more wrong. The tournament is "the specific teams" and not all of "college basketball". It is a tournament of 64 (now 68) teams.

In MLB, for example, teams and players get a "playoff share" if their teams make the playoffs due to the added television revenue. That is separate and distinct from their salaries/revenue from the regular season TV deals. Essentially, this is what the NCAA tournament is. The conferences have received their regular season "salary" and the tournament proceeds are their "playoff share".

See that's where we differ; you're talking like this is a professional league, this isn't. The product is the NCAA , which is not a league but simply a name for 300+ member institutions which house individual student athletes.. It is supposed to be about the student athlete and a level playing field so that all have an equal opportunity for a similar experience that is part of their educational endeavor, not a competitive business where it's a resource race. Professional sports are great, but we already have that system is place; we don't need to replicate it at the collegiate level. If the goal of collegiate sports is to develop an exclusive club of super rich teams that dominate , then that's what a professional league is for; that's why there are such a limited number of teams at the professional level instead of 300+. But if your goal is what collegiate sports are supposed to be about, creating the adjunct educational experience that competitive sports provides in a fair and equal arena with each student athlete being the primary concern, then this system is failing all but about 80 Universities.

Also keep in mind in the professional model you seem to favor so much, there is no subjective process for who makes the "playoffs" . Teams don't get extra opportunities based on some subjective selection process.

[Red]

We can agree to disagree on the semantics but the reality is that the NCAA tournament is not "equality for al" and it never will be. Those are the hard facts.

[Drakey]

Originally the NCAA tournament was pretty equal for all. Every conference got one representative into the tournament, and the best team won. There was no built in advantage for any specific conference. Each year it moves further and further away from that model. The ultimate goal is obviously to make this a six conference tournament, and to make sure that six conferences are at a huge financial advantage.

[Red]

Originally the NCAA tournament was pretty equal for all. Every conference got one representative into the tournament, and the best team won. There was no built in advantage for any specific conference. Each year it moves further and further away from that model. The ultimate goal is obviously to make this a six conference tournament, and to make sure that six conferences are at a huge financial advantage.

I disagree on this because the major conferences don't want it to appear that way. They'll gladly take 90% of the bids and money but can still suggest to everyone that every school has an opportunity.

[BEARZ77]

We can agree to disagree on the semantics but the reality is that the NCAA tournament is not "equality for al" and it never will be. Those are the hard facts.

On that we agree, but as Drakey points out that wasn't what was originally envisioned or set out to happen. I understand there isn't any way that will change . It's not about the fact that my shoes wet, it's about don't piss on my shoe and then try to act like it's rain. This is a system in which the NCAA out of fear and greed has sold out to the powerful and rich, and screwed the majority of it's membership which at it's core is the student athlete, plain and simple.

[Red]

My last word since we agree in principle: There is no incentive for the NCAA, TV networks, and major conferences to make any changes to the tournament and therefore nothing will change. To that point, I strongly disagree that a midmajor scheduling alliance will have any type of beneficial impact on the schools or leagues participating.

[BEARZ77]

Originally the NCAA tournament was pretty equal for all. Every conference got one representative into the tournament, and the best team won. There was no built in advantage for any specific conference. Each year it moves further and further away from that model. The ultimate goal is obviously to make this a six conference tournament, and to make sure that six conferences are at a huge financial advantage.

All you have to look at is the model for FBS football; there was an undefeated FBS team[ who by the way is still so] that beat the team that beat both of the teams that played in the so-called national championship game. I'm not saying they were better, just that the system didn't allow for the opportunity to find out and never will. That's not the goal.

[BEARZ77]

My last word since we agree in principle: There is no incentive for the NCAA, TV networks, and major conferences to make any changes to the tournament and therefore nothing will change. To that point, I strongly disagree that a midmajor scheduling alliance will have any type of beneficial impact on the schools or leagues participating.

I agree with that also; there will be the occasional MM team that has the stars align with their non-conference schedule and overall record to get at-large bid. Happens now, but it is getting increasingly difficult and at some point will be almost impossible because of limited scheduling possibilities.