Tweet
So here sits the Summit League, pretty solidly in the middle of the mid-majors, with a pretty darn good conference champion in Oakland--with an RPI of 53, a Sagarin rating of 56, and rated 69th by Pomeroy.
Then there's UT-San Antonio, champion of the Southland, with an RPI 194, Sagarin of 219, Pomeroy 219, and Alabama State of the SWAC, RPI 257, Sagarin 308, Pomeroy 295.
Either the Southland or the SWAC will earn two shares from this tournament, guaranteed, because one or the other of those two teams will win the first round game.
The Summit? Oakland gets to take on Texas in its first game.
Is this fair?
The Summit League's reward for being a better overall league than either of the Southland or the SWAC is a much more difficult first game of the tournament.
I have an idea:
Maybe the first-round games should be between the top eight one-bid-league conference representatives, not the bottom four (with one asterisk--if the one-bid-league team is put into the top half of the bracket, then they just move on to the second round.
Let's think about this:
Here are the one-bid-league teams, and their seed in this year's tournament and who they're stuck playing in the current system:
8 Butler - Horizon (9-Old Dominion) (ineligible due to the asterisk rule above)
11 Gonzaga - West Coast - (6-St. John's)
12 Utah State - WAC (5-Kansas State)
13 Belmont - Atlantic Sun (4-Wisconsin)
13 Princeton - Ivy (4-Kentucky)
13 Morehead State - Ohio Valley (4-Louisville)
13 Oakland - Summit (4-Texas)
14 Saint Peter's - Metro Atlantic (3-Purdue)
14 Indiana State - Missouri Valley (3-Syracuse)
14 Bucknell - Patriot (3-Connecticut)
14 Wofford - Southern (3-BYU)
15 Northern Colorado - Big Sky (2-San Diego State)
15 UC Santa Barbara - Big West (2-Florida)
15 Akron - Mid-American - (2-Notre Dame)
15 Long Island - Northeast (2-North Carolina)
16 Boston University - America East (1-Kansas)
16 UNC Asheville - Big South (16-Arkansas-Little Rock)
16 Hampton - MEAC (1-Duke)
16 Texas-San Antonio - Southland (16-Alabama State)
16 Alabama State - Southwestern (16-Texas-San Antonio)
16 Arkansas-Little Rock - Sun Belt (16-UNC Asheville)
Is it really fair that UNC Asheville draws UALR (and vice-versa) while Wofford gets BYU and Oakland gets Texas? Remember that the winner of the first round gets a full share from the tournament. Which is, if I recall correctly, is around $240,000 a year for the next six years--or nearly $1.5 million. That's starting to become real money.
Arguably, the Summit League should probably have thrown their tournament, and arranged for (oh, say) SDSU to win instead of Oakland, and have the Jackrabbits sent to Dayton where--quite honestly--we would have had an EXCELLENT chance of winning a second share for the Summit League against any of the other four conference champions that got sent there this year.
This is a pretty dumb system, I think.
Now, let's look at a hypothetical "First Four" games if instead of the bottom four automatic qualifiers, and the bottom four at-large qualifiers, you send the top eight one-bid conference champions (with the Butler Asterisk in effect):
Indiana State-Gonzaga
St. Peter's-Utah State
Oakland-Belmont
Morehead State-Princeton
(Oh, I'd make one more change: Each of these First Four games would be played at the site of the second/third round games, not at Dayton. This would actually give the winners of the game a bit of an advantage because they would not have to travel after their first game, but would be waiting there for their higher-seeded opponent to arrive. The winner of the First Four games would be slotted into wherever the higher seeded of the two teams would otherwise have been put in the bracket.)
I don't know about you, but that Gonzaga-Indiana State game looks interesting, and Oakland-Belmont would be a pretty incredible show. What you wind up with is a kind of mini-Bracketbusters, but actually part of the tournament.
Now, if you want to expand the tournament further, just start including more one-bid-league champions until you're giving them all more winnable games than what they are usually given today--filling out that first round field with the very lowest rated at-large team or two if necessary to balance out the bracket.
The result is that you're actually rewarding good one-bid conference champions, not punishing them for being good, and giving one-bid conferences more chances to win the all-important extra share from the tournament which, over time, might tend to balance the playing field (or court, as it were) by shifting some more money towards the have-not conferences.
Just a thought I had while in the shower this morning . . .
Then there's UT-San Antonio, champion of the Southland, with an RPI 194, Sagarin of 219, Pomeroy 219, and Alabama State of the SWAC, RPI 257, Sagarin 308, Pomeroy 295.
Either the Southland or the SWAC will earn two shares from this tournament, guaranteed, because one or the other of those two teams will win the first round game.
The Summit? Oakland gets to take on Texas in its first game.
Is this fair?
The Summit League's reward for being a better overall league than either of the Southland or the SWAC is a much more difficult first game of the tournament.
I have an idea:
Maybe the first-round games should be between the top eight one-bid-league conference representatives, not the bottom four (with one asterisk--if the one-bid-league team is put into the top half of the bracket, then they just move on to the second round.
Let's think about this:
Here are the one-bid-league teams, and their seed in this year's tournament and who they're stuck playing in the current system:
8 Butler - Horizon (9-Old Dominion) (ineligible due to the asterisk rule above)
11 Gonzaga - West Coast - (6-St. John's)
12 Utah State - WAC (5-Kansas State)
13 Belmont - Atlantic Sun (4-Wisconsin)
13 Princeton - Ivy (4-Kentucky)
13 Morehead State - Ohio Valley (4-Louisville)
13 Oakland - Summit (4-Texas)
14 Saint Peter's - Metro Atlantic (3-Purdue)
14 Indiana State - Missouri Valley (3-Syracuse)
14 Bucknell - Patriot (3-Connecticut)
14 Wofford - Southern (3-BYU)
15 Northern Colorado - Big Sky (2-San Diego State)
15 UC Santa Barbara - Big West (2-Florida)
15 Akron - Mid-American - (2-Notre Dame)
15 Long Island - Northeast (2-North Carolina)
16 Boston University - America East (1-Kansas)
16 UNC Asheville - Big South (16-Arkansas-Little Rock)
16 Hampton - MEAC (1-Duke)
16 Texas-San Antonio - Southland (16-Alabama State)
16 Alabama State - Southwestern (16-Texas-San Antonio)
16 Arkansas-Little Rock - Sun Belt (16-UNC Asheville)
Is it really fair that UNC Asheville draws UALR (and vice-versa) while Wofford gets BYU and Oakland gets Texas? Remember that the winner of the first round gets a full share from the tournament. Which is, if I recall correctly, is around $240,000 a year for the next six years--or nearly $1.5 million. That's starting to become real money.
Arguably, the Summit League should probably have thrown their tournament, and arranged for (oh, say) SDSU to win instead of Oakland, and have the Jackrabbits sent to Dayton where--quite honestly--we would have had an EXCELLENT chance of winning a second share for the Summit League against any of the other four conference champions that got sent there this year.
This is a pretty dumb system, I think.
Now, let's look at a hypothetical "First Four" games if instead of the bottom four automatic qualifiers, and the bottom four at-large qualifiers, you send the top eight one-bid conference champions (with the Butler Asterisk in effect):
Indiana State-Gonzaga
St. Peter's-Utah State
Oakland-Belmont
Morehead State-Princeton
(Oh, I'd make one more change: Each of these First Four games would be played at the site of the second/third round games, not at Dayton. This would actually give the winners of the game a bit of an advantage because they would not have to travel after their first game, but would be waiting there for their higher-seeded opponent to arrive. The winner of the First Four games would be slotted into wherever the higher seeded of the two teams would otherwise have been put in the bracket.)
I don't know about you, but that Gonzaga-Indiana State game looks interesting, and Oakland-Belmont would be a pretty incredible show. What you wind up with is a kind of mini-Bracketbusters, but actually part of the tournament.
Now, if you want to expand the tournament further, just start including more one-bid-league champions until you're giving them all more winnable games than what they are usually given today--filling out that first round field with the very lowest rated at-large team or two if necessary to balance out the bracket.
The result is that you're actually rewarding good one-bid conference champions, not punishing them for being good, and giving one-bid conferences more chances to win the all-important extra share from the tournament which, over time, might tend to balance the playing field (or court, as it were) by shifting some more money towards the have-not conferences.
Just a thought I had while in the shower this morning . . .
Comment