2022-23 Out of Conference Schedules.

[siudawgs]

Are we still doing the "the NCAA committee is out to screw mid majors" thing?
The committee chairman is Bradley AD Chris Reynolds for crying out loud.

Who said anything about screwing the mid majors; it's a perfectly defined system that gets it's desired result. Basically they evolved a system that the major differentiating factor for who gets an at large bid, is Q-1 wins. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if 75 teams are routinely going to play 20 + such games, while the other 275 will struggle to schedule 10 , that the system will benefit the 75 disproportionately. The committee is inconsequential for most of that process.They don't have to screw anybody, it's legit based on the qualifying criteria.

However, in case there are close debates about a couple teams, committee composition does matter. Who chairs the committee is of little consequence when the committee composition is always stacked . If the committee composition wasn't a big deal, why would the P-5 insist on having 50 % of the membership, when they are by far the minority of the total field. I mean if it really doesn't matter , why would they stack the committee. Don't be stupid.

BEARZ77 is on the money here.

[tribecalledquest]

Are we still doing the "the NCAA committee is out to screw mid majors" thing?
The committee chairman is Bradley AD Chris Reynolds for crying out loud.

Who said anything about screwing the mid majors; it's a perfectly defined system that gets it's desired result. Basically they evolved a system that the major differentiating factor for who gets an at large bid, is Q-1 wins. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if 75 teams are routinely going to play 20 + such games, while the other 275 will struggle to schedule 10 , that the system will benefit the 75 disproportionately. The committee is inconsequential for most of that process.They don't have to screw anybody, it's legit based on the qualifying criteria.

However, in case there are close debates about a couple teams, committee composition does matter. Who chairs the committee is of little consequence when the committee composition is always stacked . If the committee composition wasn't a big deal, why would the P-5 insist on having 50 % of the membership, when they are by far the minority of the total field. I mean if it really doesn't matter , why would they stack the committee. Don't be stupid.

The P5 teams get the most teams in the tournament because they have the best talent.

All of us here wet our pants the minute we get a P5 transfer.

[smidge34]

Just take that “L” rather than doubling down lol.

[BEARZ77]

All of us here wet our pants the minute we get a P5 transfer.

Not familiar with how fans usually celebrate in Peoria , but if that's what works for ya, ok .

[BCPanther]

Are we still doing the "the NCAA committee is out to screw mid majors" thing?
The committee chairman is Bradley AD Chris Reynolds for crying out loud.

Who said anything about screwing the mid majors; it's a perfectly defined system that gets it's desired result. Basically they evolved a system that the major differentiating factor for who gets an at large bid, is Q-1 wins. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if 75 teams are routinely going to play 20 + such games, while the other 275 will struggle to schedule 10 , that the system will benefit the 75 disproportionately. The committee is inconsequential for most of that process.They don't have to screw anybody, it's legit based on the qualifying criteria.

However, in case there are close debates about a couple teams, committee composition does matter. Who chairs the committee is of little consequence when the committee composition is always stacked . If the committee composition wasn't a big deal, why would the P-5 insist on having 50 % of the membership, when they are by far the minority of the total field. I mean if it really doesn't matter , why would they stack the committee. Don't be stupid.

The P5 teams get the most teams in the tournament because they have the best talent.

All of us here wet our pants the minute we get a P5 transfer.

There's some real validity to that. Look how many times there's a P5 transfer that averaged 3 points and a board and people act like he's a huge difference maker at this level because of what it said on the front of his jersey.

[BEARZ77]

True to a degree, but usually it's not because of the name on the jersey, but what the prospect ranking was coming out of HS or juco and how in demand were they. I value more that every MVC team in Illinois pursued NJ Benson more than I do that Jonathan Dunn had a MU offer.I care little that Ridgnal played at Georgia for a year, compared to he was a 2 time juco AA. But, no one's debating that there's more talent and more good teams in P-6 leagues , or that they deserve more bids. All I'm saying is the process of making Q1 wins the major criteria for evaluating and differentiating which teams are worthy of an at large bid is very much one that favors P-6 and that the selection criteria is one that few MM/LM have ease of access to [ Q1 games] compared to a P-6 team. It is what it is.

[Salukimadness86]

There is no doubt that P5 schools have better talent. There are, of course many reasons for this. Tradition of school, tradition/history of conference, NBA players produced, TV exposure, facilities, and the list goes on.
The most substantial reason IMO is resources. For example, the BIG 10 Network brings in approximately 50 million dollars for each conference member. This amount does not include sponsorships of stadiums/arenas or booster donations. This type of money can only help in terms of recruitment. Instead of driving to visit recruits, coaches are able to fly, stay overnight at nicer hotels, eat/meet recruits at nicer restaurants etc. NIL only adds to the P5 school handbook.
I'll end my post by adding this. Most years the BIG 10 gets 9-10 schools into the NCAA Tournament. (using BIG 10 since MVC also in Midwest) The more teams in means more $$$ for the conference, with the probability of multiple teams advancing and gaining even more revenue for said conference/members. The cycle continues every year on selection Sunday, and will continue to do so to make boosters, sponsors, and university presidents happy. More talent does not equate to more wins, as the BIG once again flopped this year. Teams with something to prove ( St. Peters) can counter talent, as it happens each year in the tournament, and something that still makes this tournament truly one of the greatest sporting events IMO.

[BEARZ77]

Ditto; I fail to understand how anyone other than their immediate fan base and conference, prefers watching a pair of 18-15 7-8th place p-6 teams play rather than seeing what a team like St Peters does when given the opportunity. But money drives everything even as it ruins it. But for now, we still get windows of opportunity , so all we can do is work the system as best we can and jump on each small chance given. Loyola did that, St Peters did that; it happens.

[tribecalledquest]

True to a degree, but usually it's not because of the name on the jersey, but what the prospect ranking was coming out of HS or juco and how in demand were they. I value more that every MVC team in Illinois pursued NJ Benson more than I do that Jonathan Dunn had a MU offer.I care little that Ridgnal played at Georgia for a year, compared to he was a 2 time juco AA. But, no one's debating that there's more talent and more good teams in P-6 leagues , or that they deserve more bids. All I'm saying is the process of making Q1 wins the major criteria for evaluating and differentiating which teams are worthy of an at large bid is very much one that favors P-6 and that the selection criteria is one that few MM/LM have ease of access to [ Q1 games] compared to a P-6 team. It is what it is.

The selection criteria is flawed. Of course it is. But coming up with an alternative that works better isn't that easy either.

[RacerJoeD]

Not to hijack the threat but there are better ways to do a tournament in a more equitable way. For example, currently HM ADs (who have a vested interest in the selection and seeding as it is the primary way that the NCAA distributes money in basketball) currently both select and seed the tournament. Simply removing one of those two things would level the playing field.

For example, having them select the field but then doing a blind draw unseeded for the bracket would be more equitable.