|
|
Post by eaglepride on Apr 3, 2024 16:45:31 GMT -6
I just saw on 365 sports that Fox sports/FS1 will start a new post season basketball tournament called the College Basketball Crown for the 2024-25 season. The CBC will be a 16 team tournament with two automatic bids from the conferences of the Big East, Big Ten and the Big 12 for a total of 6 teams and then 10 at large bids. Since the CBC will not be controlled by the NCAA Southern Indiana is eligible for the CBC but it sounds like Fox sports is trying to get the high majors in this tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by ad1770 on Apr 3, 2024 19:01:18 GMT -6
This is why the NCAA removed the auto bid from the NIT, and gave P-6 two auto bids and home court for the first round of it.
And while this new tourney isn’t NCAA controlled, no middie will get a chance. Those 10 at larges will go to a non deserving power conference team.
|
|
|
|
Post by letsgoeagles on Apr 3, 2024 20:04:59 GMT -6
This now means the NIT will be the third best college basketball tournament and the CIT the fourth. On a positive note it would seem you will see more middies in the NIT and the CIT - though the competition will be more watered down. But then again, the NCAA may very well snub the middies again and literally allow the cellar dwellers in the power conferences in.
|
|
|
|
Post by eagle87 on Apr 3, 2024 20:41:31 GMT -6
This now means the NIT will be the third best college basketball tournament and the CIT the fourth. On a positive note it would seem you will see more middies in the NIT and the CIT - though the competition will be more watered down. But then again, the NCAA may very well snub the middies again and literally allow the cellar dwellers in the power conferences in. Isn’t the CBI still around also? What needs to happen is one of the lower tournaments…CBI or CIT…needs to rebrand as the premier tournament of Mid Majors. Put it in Indiana or Kentucky for the final 4. Make it 48 teams and put in tight restrictions to keep the quality high and make it a tournament that all the snubbed mids want to play in. Get a tv deal with someone like FOX Midwest to telecast the final 4 games live. All games up to that point are on the highest seeds home floor to help attendance. To ensure that NO P5 teams are involved I would make these minimum requirements: - must have won at least 20 games - must have a winning conference record - any mid that won regular season title snubbed by NCAA and NIT are automatically added most importantly advertise this all season long as THE best tournament not called the NCAA and keep advertising it as a true tournament of winners,unlike the the NCAA and NIT that take teams with 18-15 records with a conference record of 7-13. Make it exclusive for top tier teams from mids. Someone with deep pockets from some mids need to make something like this happen. The problem with the CBI and CIT now are they allow losing record teams in and they have the reputation for being just a tournament no one cares about. Advertising and promotion from the start need to be huge so mids have something to play in. If I were a billionaire I would try to get something like this off the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by letsgoeagles on Apr 4, 2024 6:28:35 GMT -6
This now means the NIT will be the third best college basketball tournament and the CIT the fourth. On a positive note it would seem you will see more middies in the NIT and the CIT - though the competition will be more watered down. But then again, the NCAA may very well snub the middies again and literally allow the cellar dwellers in the power conferences in. Isn’t the CBI still around also? What needs to happen is one of the lower tournaments…CBI or CIT…needs to rebrand as the premier tournament of Mid Majors. Put it in Indiana or Kentucky for the final 4. Make it 48 teams and put in tight restrictions to keep the quality high and make it a tournament that all the snubbed mids want to play in. Get a tv deal with someone like FOX Midwest to telecast the final 4 games live. All games up to that point are on the highest seeds home floor to help attendance. To ensure that NO P5 teams are involved I would make these minimum requirements: - must have won at least 20 games - must have a winning conference record - any mid that won regular season title snubbed by NCAA and NIT are automatically added most importantly advertise this all season long as THE best tournament not called the NCAA and keep advertising it as a true tournament of winners,unlike the the NCAA and NIT that take teams with 18-15 records with a conference record of 7-13. Make it exclusive for top tier teams from mids. Someone with deep pockets from some mids need to make something like this happen. The problem with the CBI and CIT now are they allow losing record teams in and they have the reputation for being just a tournament no one cares about. Advertising and promotion from the start need to be huge so mids have something to play in. If I were a billionaire I would try to get something like this off the ground. I would not entirely be surprised something like what you are saying could happen. Perhaps when the split happens we might. Still not convinced the Power Conferences will entirely walk away from the mids when it comes to March Madness. However, as we all know, middies will always be snubbed and there would be plenty of good teams that would be worthy of post season play. The biggest issue will be seeing if a network feels they could make money off a mid-major final four. I do wonder with this new tournament if the NCAA will continue to invite even the lowest members of the power conferences. I am guessing they will, because the NCAA will always cater to them. |
|
|
|
Post by sandtiger on Apr 4, 2024 9:56:15 GMT -6
Had an idea how the NCAA tournament could expand while showcasing mid-majors. I know this would NEVER happen but it would be interesting.
It's 192 teams, now this sounds like a lot and it is.
Conference tournament winners (31 RIP PAC 12) get a bye the next 33 by NET also get a bye for a total of 64. Rest of the field is ranked by NET up to 192.
After this the team's are paired off like you would expect winner of 192 vs 65 plays 1, winner of 191 vs 66 plays 2, etc.
Except for the twist that they play at the lower seeded teams court.
After the 2nd round the you're down to 64 teams and they are then broken down into the 4 regions of 16 we all know.
Logistically I don't know how it would work but it would be interesting to say the least. You could end up with like a Houston at UT Arlington and Toledo hosting UConn, gives the fans of those smaller teams an opportunity to see their team host a bigger team.
Sadly in this scenario OVC still only gets Morehead and Little Rock in. MVC gets every team except Evansville and Valpo in.
Edit:team names are wrong I had the wrong math in but you get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by eagle87 on Apr 4, 2024 10:09:38 GMT -6
I would like to see LESS emphasis on NET rankings because imo they are skewed and too many bull**** metrics that shouldn’t be included. NET rankings reward the upper conference teams too much and make it nearly impossible for lower conference teams to have a high net. Morehead from the OVC was the only team that had a really good NET even though a few other teams such as UALR and Martin had great records and were pretty good teams. If you are in a top 10 conference the NET rewards your team for just being in the conference even if you suck. Teams like Murray State this past season had a horrible record 11-20 and lost to some really bad teams, yet gets a high NET 169. Why? Because the NET gives them points for playing in a higher Mid and spending more on their basketball budget. To me, rank teams on how good they are and what their record is vs good teams. Not on BS metrics like efficiency and how much you can run up the score on bad teams. A few of their metrics they use need to be removed from their formula if they want to TRULY rank the best teams at a high level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Screagle1214 on Apr 4, 2024 10:14:38 GMT -6
More basketball? I'm in.
|
|
|
|
Post by ad1770 on Apr 4, 2024 11:50:42 GMT -6
I would like to see LESS emphasis on NET rankings because imo they are skewed and too many bull**** metrics that shouldn’t be included. NET rankings reward the upper conference teams too much and make it nearly impossible for lower conference teams to have a high net. Morehead from the OVC was the only team that had a really good NET even though a few other teams such as UALR and Martin had great records and were pretty good teams. If you are in a top 10 conference the NET rewards your team for just being in the conference even if you suck. Teams like Murray State this past season had a horrible record 11-20 and lost to some really bad teams, yet gets a high NET 169. Why? Because the NET gives them points for playing in a higher Mid and spending more on their basketball budget. To me, rank teams on how good they are and what their record is vs good teams. Not on BS metrics like efficiency and how much you can run up the score on bad teams. A few of their metrics they use need to be removed from their formula if they want to TRULY rank the best teams at a high level. You sir, are starting to understand. Knowing you only have one chance to make the tourney because you do not get the opportunities of schools from the top conferences (think about this, Bama and Michigan St. both got helped because they played Indiana State at home, and it was a quad 1 game for them). |
|
|
|
Post by eagle87 on Apr 4, 2024 12:19:33 GMT -6
Oh, I’ve understood it for a long time lol. It’s always been skewed but each year inches more and more against the mids. I’ve been an advocate for the mids forever because it annoys me to reward mediocre P5 teams when strong mids can’t even get in the tournament with 25 wins and mostly against good teams. Imo, some concrete guardrails need to be implemented to eliminate the subjective nature of the selection committee. First and foremost no team gets in with less than 20 wins…excluding winning the automatic bid. Second, no team gets in with a losing conference record. Third, limit the number of teams from any conference to no more than 50%…so a conference with 14 teams can only get in 7 teams for example. If they would put these guardrails in place prior to the season starting, every team would know what they had to do to make it in. It may not be popular for many, but I would like the NCAA to mandate the regular season champion receive the automatic bid. This would eliminate a handful of teams each year that really didn’t deserve to be in. Imo, Indiana State should have been in instead of Drake. Drake was good, but Indiana State was better overall but just didn’t match up well with Drake. By simply putting minimum goals in place it would eliminate much of the subjective decisions and ensure the best teams get in. BUT, that would make too much sense and be in conflict with the goal of the NCAA, which is to put more P5 teams in and push out top mids. Money talks and the P5 schools have more money and will use it o control the NCAA. It is what it is…but its wrong.
|
|
