Did Purdue get a commit this evening?

[pig1960]

So you are suggesting that hand selected opponents playing at hand selected sites on hand selected days might yield a different result than randomization? Now, who'd a thunk that? That will never happen for a variety of reasons, but none due to fairness

I do think there are plenty who do drink the koolaid. I get a kick out of hearing you gotta beat the best anyway, doesn't matter where or when. They actually think the UNCs, etc would still make all these FFs and win ships regardless of venue or matchup. And they would occasionally just not as often. I am bitter because the NCAA sent better seeded Purdue teams to play at a liwer rated seeds home arena. Hell I think they even refer to it as the Keady rule that modified that part of the system. In the same time frame Duke never leaves NC and IU plays their openers from assembly hall. I tell ya we get no respect!

 

[BoilerBiker]

I do think there are plenty who do drink the koolaid. I get a kick out of hearing you gotta beat the best anyway, doesn't matter where or when. They actually think the UNCs, etc would still make all these FFs and win ships regardless of venue or matchup. And they would occasionally just not as often. I am bitter because the NCAA sent better seeded Purdue teams to play at a liwer rated seeds home arena. Hell I think they even refer to it as the Keady rule that modified that part of the system. In the same time frame Duke never leaves NC and IU plays their openers from assembly hall. I tell ya we get no respect!

what seed do you feel purdue and kansas should have been last year?

how would you avoid regional, final four, etc sites that are predetermined?

are you saying it is more or less important for teams like the Carolina schools to have earlier round home court advantage?
or indiana schools having an advantage with Indy being a frequent final four and regional location as well?

 

[Dryfly88]

We got a 4 because that is the narrative. Same results for a Duke or Kansas and NO WAY they would get a 4. No Way! And when you start as a 1 or 2 your odds for a FF went way up. I get it and understand it but it was would be foolish to deny that certain teams get preferential treatment and seedings. I'd love to hear the howling from the blue bloods and the results of a random draw tourney. These guys play a couple of hyped games a year - if they lose one it's no big deal, tough game, yada yada. If Purdue loses it's a seed killer, proves the point, yada yada. IU is more than likely mid pack kind of team this year but if they happen to beat a Duke or Louisville it will have zero impact on Duke's or Villes seeding. OTOH if Purdue loses at Indiana it will have a significant impact on our seeding.

I'm not going to say that I've never been upset about a seed that we've gotten, but not last year. I thought #3 at best and we got a 4. No complaint from me.

Since 2000 here are the 30 win season totals for each school:

UNC - 7
Duke - 8
Kansas - 8
PU - 0

If we start winning more games during the regular season we will get better seeds and I believe have better success in the tourney. We are not in the same group as those schools during the regular season or the post season. We regularly win 30 games and we will get the kind of seeds that let us play in our backyard too.

 

[Dryfly88]

So you are suggesting that hand selected opponents playing at hand selected sites on hand selected days might yield a different result than randomization? Now, who'd a thunk that? That will never happen for a variety of reasons, but none due to fairness

If you threw all the teams in a bag and drew them out there would still be people on here whining because we got a bad "draw".

Win more games during the regular season and we'll get better seeds and have more success. I agree that the regular season is fun and also important. We just need to do better during it.

I can't believe I'm on here "defending" Duke, UNC and KU but there is no comparison between them and us. Not during the regular season or the post season. There isn't a PU poster on here that wouldn't trade those teams records/success with ours both regular and post season.

 

[pig1960]

I'm not going to say that I've never been upset about a seed that we've gotten, but not last year. I thought #3 at best and we got a 4. No complaint from me.

Since 2000 here are the 30 win season totals for each school:

UNC - 7
Duke - 8
Kansas - 8
PU - 0

If we start winning more games during the regular season we will get better seeds and I believe have better success in the tourney. We are not in the same group as those schools during the regular season or the post season. We regularly win 30 games and we will get the kind of seeds that let us play in our backyard too.

I'm saying it's a lot easier to advance from good seed. It's even easier to advance when there is little travel involved. I realize Purdue is not a Duke. But it becomes much harder when you start at 4 vs. 1, etc. You see it year in year out - Purdue can put a decent run together and they lose a game and drop 5 spots. Duke loses that same game half the time they move up. If Purdue lose to Rutgers it would decimate our rank/seeding. Duke loses to some horrible ACC team and it's just an aberration. Deck is stacked. I just checked Dukes seedings since 85. My god how could you not do well? Purdue was 27-8 and won the Big and got a 4. When Duke had similar or worse records they got - 3,2,2,1,3,3,2,2,1,3,2. Notice all the 1s and 2s in that list. There's always a good reason though - ACC is tough, Big is down blah de frickin blah. The bottom line is they got plenty of people chanting their praises and it won't likely change anytime soon. I guess what little enjoyment I can get from this is Duke flames out quite a bit from their catbird seat too. But that's just an anomaly. While I'm on my rant here I'll also point out that Duke has won the ACC one time in the past 10 years. Didn't stop the committee from handing them 1 and 2 seeds.

 

[pig1960]

Here's Dukes road to 30 and another #1 seed...
ACC schedules were released Thursday including Duke’s.

The non-conference schedule is nothing to get excited about, at least at home.

Duke will welcome in the very well coached Elon Phoenix, Utah Valley, Southern, Furman, South Dakota, St. Francis, once a Catholic power but not so much lately, and Evansville, legendary in D-II ball but not in D-1 so far.

On the road Duke will see tougher competition: after opening with Michigan State in the State Farms Championship Classic, the Devils will play Furman in Cameron as the opener in Nike’s PK80 event. Duke will then play Portland State, then the winner of Butler vs. Texas, before closing the event out with a TBD opponent.

The Devils travel to Indiana to play the Hoosiers under new coach Archie Miller in the ACC/Big Ten Challenge before the traditional February NCAA tuneup with a nonconference opponent in New York ends non-conference play.


This year it’s St. John’s.

ACC-wise Duke has home-and-home games with Pitt, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech and of course UNC.

The one-off home games feature Florida State, Virginia, Notre Dame and Louisville while the single road trips will be to BC, NC State, Miami, Georgia Tech and Clemson.

It’s not a bad draw really. Generally speaking, the team that look tougher are coming into Cameron while Duke gets road trips against teams that have either just been bad or which have struggled to keep up with the top tier of the conference.

Tough turnarounds: Duke plays Virginia on January 27th then Notre Dame on the 29th. But February will be really tough.

Duke plays Virginia Tech at home on the 14th, then sees Clemson on the 18th at Clemson. On the 21st, Louisville comes to town, followed by Syracuse on the 24th - then a road trip to Blacksburg two days later.

 

[Dryfly88]

I'm saying it's a lot easier to advance from good seed. It's even easier to advance when there is little travel involved. I realize Purdue is not a Duke. But it becomes much harder when you start at 4 vs. 1, etc. You see it year in year out - Purdue can put a decent run together and they lose a game and drop 5 spots. Duke loses that same game half the time they move up. If Purdue lose to Rutgers it would decimate our rank/seeding. Duke loses to some horrible ACC team and it's just an aberration. Deck is stacked. I just checked Dukes seedings since 85. My god how could you not do well? Purdue was 27-8 and won the Big and got a 4. When Duke had similar or worse records they got - 3,2,2,1,3,3,2,2,1,3,2. Notice all the 1s and 2s in that list. There's always a good reason though - ACC is tough, Big is down blah de frickin blah. The bottom line is they got plenty of people chanting their praises and it won't likely change anytime soon. I guess what little enjoyment I can get from this is Duke flames out quite a bit from their catbird seat too. But that's just an anomaly. While I'm on my rant here I'll also point out that Duke has won the ACC one time in the past 10 years. Didn't stop the committee from handing them 1 and 2 seeds.

I agree completely that it's easier to advance with a higher seed. That's the whole purpose of having the seeds. Otherwise we could just throw the names in a hat and draw them out. But if we did that, then I guess we wouldn't even need the regular season.

I also agree that some teams get a lot more coverage and publicity than we do. I'm one of the biggest Duke haters around because of the coverage they get on ESPN. But the only way to get past that is for us to start winning the big games during the regular season and not trip up against teams like Nebraska. We have the perfect schedule this season to show we belong in the top of the seeds. Plenty of big games, and we need to win them. Do that and we will get that easier path.

 

[pig1960]

I agree completely that it's easier to advance with a higher seed. That's the whole purpose of having the seeds. Otherwise we could just throw the names in a hat and draw them out. But if we did that, then I guess we wouldn't even need the regular season.

I also agree that some teams get a lot more coverage and publicity than we do. I'm one of the biggest Duke haters around because of the coverage they get on ESPN. But the only way to get past that is for us to start winning the big games during the regular season and not trip up against teams like Nebraska. We have the perfect schedule this season to show we belong in the top of the seeds. Plenty of big games, and we need to win them. Do that and we will get that easier path.

I'm quite aware what we need to do. We need to win the NCAA once or twice. Purdue will not get seeded like a Duke by just matching Duke - see my previous post regarding Duke seeding.

 

[tjreese]

I agree completely that it's easier to advance with a higher seed. That's the whole purpose of having the seeds. Otherwise we could just throw the names in a hat and draw them out. But if we did that, then I guess we wouldn't even need the regular season.

I also agree that some teams get a lot more coverage and publicity than we do. I'm one of the biggest Duke haters around because of the coverage they get on ESPN. But the only way to get past that is for us to start winning the big games during the regular season and not trip up against teams like Nebraska. We have the perfect schedule this season to show we belong in the top of the seeds. Plenty of big games, and we need to win them. Do that and we will get that easier path.

Here is the reality. We will not see a truly randomized "draw" for all the NCAA teams. Still, I disagree that doing such would diminish the regular season. Indiana has had a tourney for years...that had "pairings" and until class basketball I think the vast majority cared about the regular season. We will not have a randomized "draw" for logistics, the extra work required and the perception of doing well not being rewarded (as somehow doing well wasn't a concern during the season for all of us people in Indiana that have witnessed the tourney prior to class).

Once you move away from "true" randomization, then you allow for injection of all kinds of bias that will be met with a dialog for justification...but it still will be filled with bias. Anecdotal evidence for such is witnessed by teh NCAA treatment of different schools in punishment. Now if this overt disparity takes place with punishment as we all know it does...is there any reason to think that behind closed doors it is something different in laying out the tourney?

This is just the nature of the beast. It is what it is and understanding such is why I have a lesser view of the tourney validity than others.

 

[Dryfly88]

I'm quite aware what we need to do. We need to win the NCAA once or twice. Purdue will not get seeded like a Duke by just matching Duke - see my previous post regarding Duke seeding.

I'm certainly not going to argue with you about Duke, as I stated earlier I'm one of the biggest Duke haters. However, we can do ourselves a favor by winning against UL and whoever our match ups are in Bahamas this year. Do that and it will go a long ways in getting us that better seed we all want.

 

[Dryfly88]

Here is the reality. We will not see a truly randomized "draw" for all the NCAA teams. Still, I disagree that doing such would diminish the regular season. Indiana has had a tourney for years...that had "pairings" and until class basketball I think the vast majority cared about the regular season. We will not have a randomized "draw" for logistics, the extra work required and the perception of doing well not being rewarded (as somehow doing well wasn't a concern during the season for all of us people in Indiana that have witnessed the tourney prior to class).

Once you move away from "true" randomization, then you allow for injection of all kinds of bias that will be met with a dialog for justification...but it still will be filled with bias. Anecdotal evidence for such is witnessed by teh NCAA treatment of different schools in punishment. Now if this overt disparity takes place with punishment as we all know it does...is there any reason to think that behind closed doors it is something different in laying out the tourney?

This is just the nature of the beast. It is what it is and understanding such is why I have a lesser view of the tourney validity than others.

I too played HS ball in the pre-class days (early 80's). While I agree with you it was a special time and the season was important. Let's don't forget that those "pairings" weren't always as fair as we might remember. At least in our part of IN (Northeast) the larger schools always hosted and by far had the advantage of home court and ticket availability. Nobody seemed to care because it was Hoosier Hysteria (myself included). But looking back it was certainly tilted toward the bigger schools.

Good discussion with both you guys (Pig1960). Like I said previously, I'm not completely comfortable being the spokesperson for some of the schools we've been discussing. I just think we need to be realistic and recognize that we've had opportunities to kick that door down and we haven't done it. I'm hoping that time is coming soon! We have the schedule to do it this year.

 

[PurdueBtfu2]

Here is the reality. We will not see a truly randomized "draw" for all the NCAA teams. Still, I disagree that doing such would diminish the regular season. Indiana has had a tourney for years...that had "pairings" and until class basketball I think the vast majority cared about the regular season. We will not have a randomized "draw" for logistics, the extra work required and the perception of doing well not being rewarded (as somehow doing well wasn't a concern during the season for all of us people in Indiana that have witnessed the tourney prior to class).

Once you move away from "true" randomization, then you allow for injection of all kinds of bias that will be met with a dialog for justification...but it still will be filled with bias. Anecdotal evidence for such is witnessed by teh NCAA treatment of different schools in punishment. Now if this overt disparity takes place with punishment as we all know it does...is there any reason to think that behind closed doors it is something different in laying out the tourney?

This is just the nature of the beast. It is what it is and understanding such is why I have a lesser view of the tourney validity than others.

A randomized tournament? No thanks. It is bad enough now that a winless regular season team can auto-qualify by winning a conference tournament. At least now that team would suffer a worse seeding.

 

[pig1960]

I too played HS ball in the pre-class days (early 80's). While I agree with you it was a special time and the season was important. Let's don't forget that those "pairings" weren't always as fair as we might remember. At least in our part of IN (Northeast) the larger schools always hosted and by far had the advantage of home court and ticket availability. Nobody seemed to care because it was Hoosier Hysteria (myself included). But looking back it was certainly tilted toward the bigger schools.

Good discussion with both you guys (Pig1960). Like I said previously, I'm not completely comfortable being the spokesperson for some of the schools we've been discussing. I just think we need to be realistic and recognize that we've had opportunities to kick that door down and we haven't done it. I'm hoping that time is coming soon! We have the schedule to do it this year.

No worries here Dry.,.my overriding theme is a lot of people are overly critical of Purdue based on a skewed one and done tourney that heavily favors a few teams consistently. And even when it heavily favors those teams they fail much more than they succeed. If Duke and Purdue had exactly the same schedule, the same results I'd lay good money that the Duke name would be worth at least 2 seeds and favorable location. eg Duke plays in Atlanta as a 2 and Purdue plays in Spokane as a 4.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

No worries here Dry.,.my overriding theme is a lot of people are overly critical of Purdue based on a skewed one and done tourney that heavily favors a few teams consistently. And even when it heavily favors those teams they fail much more than they succeed. If Duke and Purdue had exactly the same schedule, the same results I'd lay good money that the Duke name would be worth at least 2 seeds and favorable location. eg Duke plays in Atlanta as a 2 and Purdue plays in Spokane as a 4.

Lmao you act like Purdue has never had a one seed. Its pretty simple, just win the games you play.

 

[GoldandBlackintheSaddleAgain]

uhh ya i never said that. imo though the pile of puke is people like you who can't handle a different opinion.

It bothers me at times to read what some people say about CMP & our players. I feel it crosses WAY over the line of constructive criticism.

That said, my post was childish. And yes, calling names (internet or in-person) is weak sauce. I regret my post and apologize to both you & 73

 

[tjreese]

A randomized tournament? No thanks. It is bad enough now that a winless regular season team can auto-qualify by winning a conference tournament. At least now that team would suffer a worse seeding.

you do realize that you could have a randomized tourney based upon conference champs if that is what you desired. don't confuse randomization with all possible outcomes

 

[BoilerDaddy]

you do realize that you could have a randomized tourney based upon conference champs if that is what you desired. don't confuse randomization with all possible outcomes

I think that the current system is pretty good. The best team usually doesn't win the championship and some teams run into worse matchups than others, but it is entertaining and draws a lot more interest than the regular season.

As much as I would like for Purdue to make a Final Four, I don't blame the tournament format for it not happening. The way I view it is that Purdue has rarely been close to top 4 in the NCAA in terms of talent, so a Final Four run is going to require some good breaks. Keady had some teams that were clearly good enough, IMO, and I certainly don't blame Painter for it not working out. Painter would have had strong contenders in 2010 and 2011 had Hummel not gotten hurt, but the ACL tear happened and there is nothing that we can do about it. Some of his other teams were very good, but not teams that I would expect to make a Final Four without some luck. I'm ok with that. Painter is a very good coach and Purdue is very fortunate to have him. I like his chances of eventually having a deep NCAA run, but I won't try to predict when it will happen.

 

[pig1960]

Lmao you act like Purdue has never had a one seed. Its pretty simple, just win the games you play.

Umm...yeah...thanks for the input John.

 

[JohnHoosierr]

Umm...yeah...thanks for the input John.

Anytime pig

 

[mathboy]

I'm saying it's a lot easier to advance from good seed. It's even easier to advance when there is little travel involved. I realize Purdue is not a Duke. But it becomes much harder when you start at 4 vs. 1, etc. You see it year in year out - Purdue can put a decent run together and they lose a game and drop 5 spots. Duke loses that same game half the time they move up. If Purdue lose to Rutgers it would decimate our rank/seeding. Duke loses to some horrible ACC team and it's just an aberration. Deck is stacked. I just checked Dukes seedings since 85. My god how could you not do well? Purdue was 27-8 and won the Big and got a 4. When Duke had similar or worse records they got - 3,2,2,1,3,3,2,2,1,3,2. Notice all the 1s and 2s in that list. There's always a good reason though - ACC is tough, Big is down blah de frickin blah. The bottom line is they got plenty of people chanting their praises and it won't likely change anytime soon. I guess what little enjoyment I can get from this is Duke flames out quite a bit from their catbird seat too. But that's just an anomaly. While I'm on my rant here I'll also point out that Duke has won the ACC one time in the past 10 years. Didn't stop the committee from handing them 1 and 2 seeds.

He's on a roll here!

 

[Purdue85]

Cream won 2 big ten ships and went to 3 s16 as well. Same as painter, soooooo.

Dude . . . he was supposed to be the savior.

And IU is supposed to be "elite."

And, he had lottery picks and still sucked.

 

[Purdue85]

You said we don't need highly rated players to accomplish great things. I pointed out the only time painter accomplished anything of significance was with highly rated players. That doesn't prove your point at all, not even sure how you gathered that from what i stated haha. And i love how you used msu, duke, Kansas etc as teams with multiple top 50 guys as some sort of proof those players don't guarantee success. Uh, those are the most successful bball programs around.

And Clappy the Clown had highly rated players and sucked. Never "accomplish(ed) great things."

 

[PurdueBtfu2]

you do realize that you could have a randomized tourney based upon conference champs if that is what you desired. don't confuse randomization with all possible outcomes

I do not see that specific scenario lasting either. As soon as Major conference champions start eliminating one another in early rounds while the MEAC versus Patriot League winners advance. Or major programs who simply never qualify - such as Kansas' sole conference representation for over a decade. Conference expansion would prove to be detrimental to a number of major schools.

I do not think these eventual scenarios would be tolerated long by the big name schools and conferences. Nor would it benefit the NCAA as a whole.

Tournament selection bias may be eliminated, but it would create these new controversies and new long term issues that could manifest far worse than existing problems.

 

[PebbleUO2]

What would you think of seeding done blindly by something like KenPom (certainly not RPI) for 96 teams with the top 32 having a first round bye and games on Monday & Tuesday? Would increase revenue for NCAA, likely provide better competition for the high seeds early in the tournament, give small conference schools a chance of being more than cannon fodder in the tourney. They could announce the 32 bye terms on Friday (TV revenue) the selection show for the 64 other teams on Saturday (more TV revenue), and final seeding on Sunday (with likely little drop in viewership from the current system - maybe more because 28 more teams' fans have a rooting interest).

 

[tjreese]

I do not see that specific scenario lasting either. As soon as Major conference champions start eliminating one another in early rounds while the MEAC versus Patriot League winners advance. Or major programs who simply never qualify - such as Kansas' sole conference representation for over a decade. Conference expansion would prove to be detrimental to a number of major schools.

I do not think these eventual scenarios would be tolerated long by the big name schools and conferences. Nor would it benefit the NCAA as a whole.

Tournament selection bias may be eliminated, but it would create these new controversies and new long term issues that could manifest far worse than existing problems.

whoa...not sure if you are writing me since I was quoted or just writing? I stated that bias was in play and only randomization would actually eliminate that bias. That is true and that was what I stated. I also said that randomization would never happen due to a variety of reasons, but none based upon fairness. I said logistics and such would not allow it. I don't think for a second that the powers in charge want to lose some power, whether that is in the NCAA, the workplace, or society in general.

Suggesting anything other than true randomization injects bias...it really is that simple. The big schools in the IHSAA didn't like playing each other early either, and so I'm sure the lack of human bias would NOT be favored by large schools, but again...THAT was never my intention to suggest that everyone would like randomization. I just merely point out bias exist. We have intentional bias and we have non-intentional bias. We have bias and that is the reality of the situation. Will we get rid of the bias...NO...too much money at stake. The beast is what it is.

 

[tjreese]

What would you think of seeding done blindly by something like KenPom (certainly not RPI) for 96 teams with the top 32 having a first round bye and games on Monday & Tuesday? Would increase revenue for NCAA, likely provide better competition for the high seeds early in the tournament, give small conference schools a chance of being more than cannon fodder in the tourney. They could announce the 32 bye terms on Friday (TV revenue) the selection show for the 64 other teams on Saturday (more TV revenue), and final seeding on Sunday (with likely little drop in viewership from the current system - maybe more because 28 more teams' fans have a rooting interest).

not saying it is good or bad, but that would fall within an intentional bias

 

[PebbleUO2]

Do you think KenPom rankings are biased? If so, would the bias be as objectionable to the system we have now? Would this drive discussions away from Political bias and subsequent whining? Or would the discussion just drift toward the "it's not who you play, it's when you play them" arguements? An example was two years ago when we were swept by TMHR (playing very very well) early in B1G and that other "team" to the South swept them after the wheels came off TMHR.

 

[tjreese]

Do you think KenPom rankings are biased? If so, would the bias be as objectionable to the system we have now? Would this drive discussions away from Political bias and subsequent whining? Or would the discussion just drift toward the "it's not who you play, it's when you play them" arguements? An example was two years ago when we were swept by TMHR (playing very very well) early in B1G and that other "team" to the South swept them after the wheels came off TMHR.

If this is to me...everything other than randomization has bias. I'm beginning to think bias is not understood. I'm not sayingbias is good or bad...just biased. There are many things in life that biasing is good. I just think it is important for people to understand things whether testing claims or profiling.

 

[PebbleUO2]

I'm not disputing that there is bias in any ranking/seeding system. All measurement processes affect what they measure. I only seek a real-world system that minimizes the impact of political/economic bias that has a positive economic impact on stakeholders needed to promote (not impede) such a system's Implimentation.

 

[tjreese]

I'm not disputing that there is bias in any ranking/seeding system. All measurement processes affect what they measure. I only seek a real-world system that minimizes the impact of political/economic bias that has a positive economic impact on stakeholders needed to promote (not impede) such a system's Implimentation.

Small clarification. All measurement processes do NOT affect what they measure. All measurement processes may not reflect the desired understanding for a variety of reasons. Those are different and that distinction is important. I really don't know what you are advocating when you state, " I only seek a real-world system that minimizes the impact of political/economic bias that has a positive economic impact on stakeholders needed to promote (not impede) such a system's Implimentation."

Not knowing what you are saying, I'm sure I agree with some of it and perhaps???? disagree with others. Biasing by itself is not directional. It may be good and it may be bad...I "think" we are in agreement with that? I'm not sure if your comments were on the NCAA or not? This originated due to my comments on not rating the tourney results as high as some value them. Pig1960 showed some of the preferential treatment in numbers and mentioned where Purdue had to play in the 1980s to illustrate some bias. I commented that there is little disagreement on biasing towards punishment and proposed that if the NCAA would be so overt to show preferential treatment to certain schools on violations, that it would seem logical that behind closed doors it would be even more likely to bias the tourney. There is no question that biasing exists and there is no question that preferential treatment as a result of the biasing exists...at least in the NCAA. If those concerns are not important to you...okay, that is fine. I have no desire to convince people they should not like what they like. I think many may be fine with that. True fairness to be the winner of the tourney for all D1 schools could happen, but it won't because that is not a desired response. That is the essence of what was said. If a liquor store was robbed by a person on crutches missing half of his right femur, I wouldn't be stopping people with all their limbs...that would be stupid for a variety reasons, and to stop people with all their limbs would be stupid for political reasons. Biasing by itself is neutral...it is only when it is defined that it may be a positive or a negative and even then that positive or negative may have political ramifications. I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but I hope I'm clarifying if I haven't already done so.

 

[Wolegib]

I just had an idea and a question! I believe we all agree the NCAA tourney has taken a lot of significance, ratings and attendance away from regular season games!

My question is twofold! Where does all that money go that the NCAA makes off its tourney? Back to the schools? And how much money does the NCAA make off regular games? And where does that money go? Into one big pool and shared by all? To the conference? To the 2 schools involved ?

I know the Big10 does revenue sharing ! Does the Big 10 receive more money depending on the finish of their team in the tourney? If Purdue made the elite 8, would the BIG 10 get more money?

On the other hand would the BIG 10 schools make as much money if their regular season games were all sold out?

My thought would be to cut the tourney back to 32 teams! This would increase viewership and ad revenue because the teams would be a better product! It would also increase the importance of regular season and conference tournament games and increase their attendance! It just doesn't seem like the conference tournaments have any meaning anymore because the top teams know they have their guaranteed tourney birth regardless of the outcome. Admittedly the tshirt industry would suffer with only 32 teams in the tourney

 

[tjreese]

I think that the current system is pretty good. The best team usually doesn't win the championship and some teams run into worse matchups than others, but it is entertaining and draws a lot more interest than the regular season.

As much as I would like for Purdue to make a Final Four, I don't blame the tournament format for it not happening. The way I view it is that Purdue has rarely been close to top 4 in the NCAA in terms of talent, so a Final Four run is going to require some good breaks. Keady had some teams that were clearly good enough, IMO, and I certainly don't blame Painter for it not working out. Painter would have had strong contenders in 2010 and 2011 had Hummel not gotten hurt, but the ACL tear happened and there is nothing that we can do about it. Some of his other teams were very good, but not teams that I would expect to make a Final Four without some luck. I'm ok with that. Painter is a very good coach and Purdue is very fortunate to have him. I like his chances of eventually having a deep NCAA run, but I won't try to predict when it will happen.

I'm okay with the tourney because I understand what it is and I do believe that with enough winning ti is possible to get the backing of the NCAA and improve recruiting. However, I know the true test of fairness for an end of season tourney champ. I'm also aware that if what was considered the two best teams played the first day, that a lot of revenue would be lost in the rest of the tourney as well as the hype. That alone shows you a motive. I'll watch the tourney and enjoy it as well...I just see it much different than the hype generated to make me see it.

 

[tjreese]

I just had an idea and a question! I believe we all agree the NCAA tourney has taken a lot of significance, ratings and attendance away from regular season games!

My question is twofold! Where does all that money go that the NCAA makes off its tourney? Back to the schools? And how much money does the NCAA make off regular games? And where does that money go? Into one big pool and shared by all? To the conference? To the 2 schools involved ?

I know the Big10 does revenue sharing ! Does the Big 10 receive more money depending on the finish of their team in the tourney? If Purdue made the elite 8, would the BIG 10 get more money?

On the other hand would the BIG 10 schools make as much money if their regular season games were all sold out?

My thought would be to cut the tourney back to 32 teams! This would increase viewership and ad revenue because the teams would be a better product! It would also increase the importance of regular season and conference tournament games and increase their attendance! It just doesn't seem like the conference tournaments have any meaning anymore because the top teams know they have their guaranteed tourney birth regardless of the outcome. Admittedly the tshirt industry would suffer with only 32 teams in the tourney

The conference tourney was to increase revenue and the winner is the guarantee into the tourney. It originated in the ACC (I believe) to allow another team into the tourney that otherwise might not get in. The thoughts back then were that the ACC and their eastern media believed the conference was too tough and that really good teams were getting left out. This tourney was the first and it generated media coverage (money) and helped get a team in. What I can’t recall for certain, but believe was the NC state got in by winning the conference tourney and then winning the national tourney when the dunkers of Houston couldn’t make a FT. I know NC State was barely over 500 prior to the NCAA tourney. I can't speak to how the money is rolled out as teams get past the first day. I'm thinking it is $125,000 for making the tourney, but you need to research that if interested because I don't know...or perhaps another with knowledge will answer you on the money...

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

The conference tourney was to increase revenue and the winner is the guarantee into the tourney. It originated in the ACC (I believe) to allow another team into the tourney that otherwise might not get in. The thoughts back then were that the ACC and their eastern media believed the conference was too tough and that really good teams were getting left out. This tourney was the first and it generated media coverage (money) and helped get a team in. What I can’t recall for certain, but believe was the NC state got in by winning the conference tourney and then winning the national tourney when the dunkers of Houston couldn’t make a FT. I know NC State was barely over 500 prior to the NCAA tourney. I can't speak to how the money is rolled out as teams get past the first day. I'm thinking it is $125,000 for making the tourney, but you need to research that if interested because I don't know...or perhaps another with knowledge will answer you on the money...

A bit of a historical note: Back when the NCAA tournament was limited to a 32-team field, the ACC tournament champion received the only bid from the conference. There's probably no better illustration of its effect than 1974 when two of the best teams in the country (NC State and Maryland) faced off. NC State (led by David Thompson) prevailed in an epic OT game, 103-100. So, 4th ranked Maryland with only four regular season losses (including a one point loss on the road to defending champ UCLA in the opener) went home without even getting a place in the field. Can you imagine that today?

NC State went on to win the NCAA tournament in Greensboro ending UCLA's record 7-year streak in the Final Four in another classic. Was NC State a worthy champion? I think so, beating arguably the two other best teams in the country.....but in today's arena, Maryland would have been a 1-seed and received at least another chance.

Also....I do believe, NC State in '83 could have lost earlier in the tournament to Pepperdine but escaped.....sometimes, a team needs a few breaks. Thurl Bailey was a darn good player....that team did have some talent and knew how to play close games.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

A bit of a historical note: Back when the NCAA tournament was limited to a 32-team field, the ACC tournament champion received the only bid from the conference. There's probably no better illustration of its effect than 1974 when two of the best teams in the country (NC State and Maryland) faced off. NC State (led by David Thompson) prevailed in an epic OT game, 103-100. So, 4th ranked Maryland with only four regular season losses (including a one point loss on the road to defending champ UCLA in the opener) went home without even getting a place in the field. Can you imagine that today?

NC State went on to win the NCAA tournament in Greensboro ending UCLA's record 7-year streak in the Final Four in another classic. Was NC State a worthy champion? I think so, beating arguably the two other best teams in the country.....but in today's arena, Maryland would have been a 1-seed and received at least another chance.

Also....I do believe, NC State in '83 could have lost earlier in the tournament to Pepperdine but escaped.....sometimes, a team needs a few breaks. Thurl Bailey was a darn good player....that team did have some talent and knew how to play close games.

There was also 1979 when Purdue tied for the Big Ten title with eventual National Champion MSU and Iowa, but didn't make the NCAA Tournament.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

There was also 1979 when Purdue tied for the Big Ten title with eventual National Champion MSU and Iowa, but didn't make the NCAA Tournament.

Yes....I think the Boilers two losses to TMHR ended up being the difference. Ended up falling in the NIT final to Indiana.

 

[Gemini95]

My thought would be to cut the tourney back to 32 teams! This would increase viewership and ad revenue because the teams would be a better product! It would also increase the importance of regular season and conference tournament games and increase their attendance! It just doesn't seem like the conference tournaments have any meaning anymore because the top teams know they have their guaranteed tourney birth regardless of the outcome. Admittedly the tshirt industry would suffer with only 32 teams in the tourney

You think cutting out half of the games would increase ad revenue? I don't think they are having any trouble selling ads for those "poor product" first round games.

 

[PurdueBtfu2]

whoa...not sure if you are writing me since I was quoted or just writing? I stated that bias was in play and only randomization would actually eliminate that bias. That is true and that was what I stated. I also said that randomization would never happen due to a variety of reasons, but none based upon fairness. I said logistics and such would not allow it. I don't think for a second that the powers in charge want to lose some power, whether that is in the NCAA, the workplace, or society in general.

Suggesting anything other than true randomization injects bias...it really is that simple. The big schools in the IHSAA didn't like playing each other early either, and so I'm sure the lack of human bias would NOT be favored by large schools, but again...THAT was never my intention to suggest that everyone would like randomization. I just merely point out bias exist. We have intentional bias and we have non-intentional bias. We have bias and that is the reality of the situation. Will we get rid of the bias...NO...too much money at stake. The beast is what it is.

OK. I thought you were making an improvement suggestion rather than an observation. I think everyone knows committee members are subjective and with bias. Right now, I would still prefer the slight faults we may see with this annual tournament selection process compared to possible consequences of the random tournament match-ups described earlier.

 

[tjreese]

OK. I thought you were making an improvement suggestion rather than an observation. I think everyone knows committee members are subjective and with bias. Right now, I would still prefer the slight faults we may see with this annual tournament selection process compared to possible consequences of the random tournament match-ups described earlier.

and as I said earlier...anyone that prefers preferential treatment has their right. I'm not here to tell a person they shouldn't like what they like. I prefer to not have preferential treatment for some and I understand that many don't want a tourney where all start with the same chance. You don't think randomization would be an improvement and I do and that is fine. If randomization created a different result than non-randomization...then even more would understand the effects of the bias. Nobody wants to lose power and so randomization will never happen...at least in the near future...

 

[PurdueBtfu2]

and as I said earlier...anyone that prefers preferential treatment has their right. I'm not here to tell a person they shouldn't like what they like. I prefer to not have preferential treatment for some and I understand that many don't want a tourney where all start with the same chance. You don't think randomization would be an improvement and I do and that is fine. If randomization created a different result than non-randomization...then even more would understand the effects of the bias. Nobody wants to lose power and so randomization will never happen...at least in the near future...

I like the concept of eliminating bias as well, but not convinced a random tournament is the best or good solution. Especially one eliminating ninety percent of conference participants. With the current setup, I enjoy the importance of the regular season. And how so many games even late in the season remain relevant for tournament seeding. As Matt Painter was quoted by poster Treed I believe, the regular season is months long preparation for tournament play. I like that.