Thought you'd find this interesting...gives payouts for Conferences. Enjoy
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...nd-syracuse-worth-at-least-128-million-to-acc
The only reason an unqualified team "generated revenue" was because they showed up with twelve guys in basketball uniforms. People will watch 12 monkeys throwing bananas if it's presented as one of the 68. No one except one or two hundred Vandy fans tuned into the Vandy play-in game because THEY were playing. It's all about The Big Dance.
Agreed. But the field is large enough with 68 teams that a few bubble teams get in and prove their mettle. If they were deserving like Syracuse, their conferences should benefit financially. The undeserving bubble teams like Vandy should get little or nothing for their conferences.
"Fairness" is getting the money that you EARN THRU PERFORMANCE, and no more or less. MTSU didn't get out of the first weekend and lost to a 10-seed. Was that 10-seed (Syracuse) under-seeded?...Probably. Was the 2-seed that MTSU beat (Mich St) over-seeded?...For sure.
There's nothing unreasonable or unsupported, i.e., "arbitrary", about pertinent facts... 40% of NCAA tourney revenue goes to conferences other than the P5 and the Big East. Yet, those other conferences comprise only about 10% of the schools that advance to the second weekend of the NCAA tourney. And that's over the last five years. The tournament would exist in its current form without that 10% group, but the reverse is obviously not true.
Over the last five years, the ACC has had 26% of the Sweet 16 spots and 33% of the Elite 8, counting all of the current schools in that calculation. The next highest is the Big Ten at 20% and 20%, respectively. The remaining P5 conferences and the current Big East have averaged around 10% at each of those rounds.
The catalyst for my post was what I posted. Sorry that may not be what you were looking for. I don't come to rivals forums to beat my chest about anything. There are many teams that I would root for Louisville over. Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indian, Tennessee, just to name a few
Hanging a name like "arbitrary" or "cherry picking" on the data just means you don't like what the data indicate. Using data that correlate with advancing in the tournament is, by definition, performance related.
The denominator of 24% is total games played which has little to do with performance. Remind me again how Vandy earned the SEC anything that was performance related. Or how Austin Peay, UNC-Asheville, Holy Cross, Green Bay, Hampton, and Stony Brook earned their conferences anything? Those teams lost their openers by an average of 31 points. And keep in mind that probably all of those teams play in conferences that get AUTOMATIC berths. (I say "probably" because I'm not researching it...) There's nothing performance related about "automatic".
See this link. Specifically, the text below "Conferences are Key" if you don't wanna do the calculation yourself. The actual number is 40%. The author takes the opposite position, that 20% of the schools collect 60% of the money. Of course, most of those 80% schools don't matter as far as college basketball is concerned.
Yours is the cop-out argument that every critic of the NCAA hears. That it's a "voluntary organization". Sure it is, if you're OK with the alternative of playing basketball by yourself. Microsoft told the Feds twenty years ago that they didn't have a monopoly either. And what did the NCAA do before the current distribution of basketball money--or before the CFA was formed in football? Even flatter payout formulas. Because a chicken-in-every-pot is their mentality, and you don't really change your stripes because someone forces you to.
Maybe some other folks need to hear the Robin Hood lecture. This guy for instance. Because in college athletics, it's ALL about the money and who actually earns it--and it will be even more in the future. You're simply trying to defend the old order of things and putting off the inevitable. Good luck with that.
If that is what you took from my post then I don't know what to tell you. We play who we play. We do our best to schedule a decent OOC for that very reason. We can't build a basketball program for us AND the rest of the SEC.
Kentucky State, Albany, NJIT, Wright State, Boston U., USF, Illinois State, EKU...
If there's legit performance involved with those conferences and their auto-qualifiers, they shouldn't have a problem if we eliminate all automatic bids and simply seed the best 68 teams in the country, should they? Do you think they will (have a problem)? Do you think even one or two might get a bid otherwise?
Most recent info available in that detail. But it doesn't matter, The big boys are not getting paid ENOUGH based on their performance. There wouldn't be a tourney without them, and there may not be at some point.
It's not about me like you're trying to make it. I gave you a comparable link in football. These people (schools) are all greedy and about money; you're in denial thinking otherwise. And the NCAA is not an organization with a mission that supports greed. In the end, that has been and will be its failing.
I don't need a description of the "current format" which I understand too well. The current format is the problem, and it's not about me saying that. Too much basketball revenue ends up in the hands of people and institutions NOT responsible for earning the money. It goes to NCAA bureaucracy that administers to college football as well. It goes to basketball conferences with automatic tourney qualifiers and champions that lose first round games by thirty points. Teams that cause people to ask "WTH are they doing in the tourney?"Good thing we don't live in Zipp's world then!
I'd have no problem with an invitation only tournament, get in on merits of play rather than a fluke late season run. I'd also have no problem seeing basketball split into divisions (1 and 1-AA) like football is (was) as opposed to one giant 300 team division.
However, under the current format, I think the teams that contribute to the bottom line should get some benefit... so if you are IN the tournament, for whatever reason, you reap the benefits. It's not about "socialism" or about "robin hood" or any other straw man you want to throw out. It's about getting paid for doing a job.
And now we are back to square one, our fundamental disagreement is back to the payments for the early rounds. Back to the original topic, the ACC is getting their payday... if they want more money, they can negotiate it. They are in the position of power in that regard.
Now you're parsing words, one of the last stages of a lost argument.
Speaking from experience here OEW - you probably just want to let it go. Time and facts are inconsequential things to zip - the only thing that matters to him is being the one who posts last.My straw man reference is to your continued misuse, or misunderstanding, of what socialism is.
No, that is not the epitome of socialism. That distribution is encouraged, not required. Also, socialism is an economic system where the state (government) controls the means of production, the product, and the distribution of the product. That clearly does not apply here. And you calling it socialism, does not make it so.
