Power Conferences - Where is the Power in Basketball??

[FirstDownB]

Looking at our probable 4 seed fate got me thinking about the parallels between basketball and football. Like what would our seeding be if this were football?

Instead of an auto bid into a field of 64 tournament, the winner of the Big Ten typically receives a bid into a playoff of 4 teams. This is like a fast-track to the Final Four based on the regular season and BTCG only. Although football does not have an auto bid, there has been a Big Ten team in the CFP every single year. And if some year the Big Ten champ were deemed unworthy, the worst it would get is the Rose Bowl or equivalent, which is like an Elite 8. I believe the reason for this is strong hand negotiations from the power conferences like the Big Ten. Our champion's resume is not simply thrown into a bag with all the others. It has a basement floor of what is roughly equivalent to a 2-seed in basketball. And you better believe if the CFP ever expands to 8 teams, the Power 5 conferences will mandate they each have an auto bid.

I guess my question is, if a Big Ten champ can be a 4 seed, what has the Big Ten and all its strength, power, and glory really provided for its members in basketball? Our champ is thrown into the bag with all others and given no formal advantages. Maybe this is the more fair method than football.. but since when does fair have anything to do with revenue college sports. I'm not asking for a 1 seed, but when your conference's champ is on the same seed line as the third or fourth team from another conference, I have a hard time resolving this situation vis a vis football.

Any guesses whether Delany or other commissioners will address this in the future? It seems like the SEC commish would have incentive to buy in, maybe Pac12, Big12.

 

[Dryfly88]

Interesting topic FDB: I think one major difference is the number of games played in the regular season (over twice as many in B-ball). This give twice as many data points to draw conclusions from. Second, in b-ball the B1G doesn't have the same "reputation" as it does in football. Specifically in football OSU, Michigan, PSU and maybe MSU lately. If one of those teams win the B1G it is automatically assumed they are one of the top 4 teams in the country. What will be the true test is what happens when one of those don't win it, will that winner still get the same respect? Let's just say that PU came out of the West Division and won the B1G. Would they get one of the top 4 spots?

Bottom line, I think currently the B1G in football is looked at like the ACC is in B-ball. As long as the "normally" strong teams finish at the top it is assumed all is right with the world and they deserve to be at the top in the country.

There is no way to do this, but I think it would be interesting to see what would the seed/ranking be for MSU if they had our resume this year and we had theirs? I'm not going to suggest they would be a 2 seed for sure, but they wouldn't be a 4 seed either. Reputations and past performance do influence people in both football and basketball.

 

[FirstDownB]

Interesting topic FDB: I think one major difference is the number of games played in the regular season (over twice as many in B-ball). This give twice as many data points to draw conclusions from. Second, in b-ball the B1G doesn't have the same "reputation" as it does in football. Specifically in football OSU, Michigan, PSU and maybe MSU lately. If one of those teams win the B1G it is automatically assumed they are one of the top 4 teams in the country. What will be the true test is what happens when one of those don't win it, will that winner still get the same respect? Let's just say that PU came out of the West Division and won the B1G. Would they get one of the top 4 spots?

Bottom line, I think currently the B1G in football is looked at like the ACC is in B-ball. As long as the "normally" strong teams finish at the top it is assumed all is right with the world and they deserve to be at the top in the country.

There is no way to do this, but I think it would be interesting to see what would the seed/ranking be for MSU if they had our resume this year and we had theirs? I'm not going to suggest they would be a 2 seed for sure, but they wouldn't be a 4 seed either. Reputations and past performance do influence people in both football and basketball.

Thanks for the thoughts. I think your point about the Big Ten being more of a football conference explains why it might not be a 1 for 1 comparison for the CFP. However, even the weakest Power 5 conference champion gets an "Elite 8" auto bid to a New Year's Bowl. They might not be playing for the CFP title, but there is prestige over any of the other bowl games.


Participants in the New Year’s Bowls
Both participants in the Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls are contracted outside the playoff arrangement (Big Ten and Pac-12 to Rose Bowl; SEC and Big 12 to Sugar Bowl; ACC to Orange Bowl against the highest ranked available team from the SEC, Big Ten and Notre Dame). If a conference champion qualifies for the playoff, then the bowl will choose a replacement from that conference. When those bowls host the semifinals and their contracted conference champions do not qualify, then the displaced champion(s) will play in one of the other New Year’s bowls.


Obviously a major difference is you can't have a 68 team playoff in football. But I suspect if they did expand the CFP, the Power 5 champions would have some sort of built-in advantage. You don't just bring more participants to the table without negotiating something in return. Whether it be a bye, a double bye, minimum seeding, whatever.

Perhaps it is simply that there is less money influence in basketball than football.. That's probably a good thing for basketball. I'm just bitter that we are good in the sport where membership doesn't have its advantages.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Looking at our probable 4 seed fate got me thinking about the parallels between basketball and football. Like what would our seeding be if this were football?

Instead of an auto bid into a field of 64 tournament, the winner of the Big Ten typically receives a bid into a playoff of 4 teams. This is like a fast-track to the Final Four based on the regular season and BTCG only. Although football does not have an auto bid, there has been a Big Ten team in the CFP every single year. And if some year the Big Ten champ were deemed unworthy, the worst it would get is the Rose Bowl or equivalent, which is like an Elite 8. I believe the reason for this is strong hand negotiations from the power conferences like the Big Ten. Our champion's resume is not simply thrown into a bag with all the others. It has a basement floor of what is roughly equivalent to a 2-seed in basketball. And you better believe if the CFP ever expands to 8 teams, the Power 5 conferences will mandate they each have an auto bid.

I guess my question is, if a Big Ten champ can be a 4 seed, what has the Big Ten and all its strength, power, and glory really provided for its members in basketball? Our champ is thrown into the bag with all others and given no formal advantages. Maybe this is the more fair method than football.. but since when does fair have anything to do with revenue college sports. I'm not asking for a 1 seed, but when your conference's champ is on the same seed line as the third or fourth team from another conference, I have a hard time resolving this situation vis a vis football.

Any guesses whether Delany or other commissioners will address this in the future? It seems like the SEC commish would have incentive to buy in, maybe Pac12, Big12.

Although the analysis and argument is admirable, I don't think you can make a good comparison because the football playoff and NCAA tournament are at different ends of the spectrum as to qualification/participation. Maybe if you were still talking about a 32-team field with limitations to two teams from a conference like up until 1979 or so....but unfortunately, Pandora's box has been opened for too long now.

In football, it is like a cartel with the SEC and Big Ten really heading the "Five" Families. There is more room for quid quo pro among them. Can't get away with that in basketball because the power is more widespread, and many, many more schools are in play. Plus the $$$$$ is spread out more with basketball......there aren't huge pay-outs for certain games like with the play-off games/bowls and guaranteed $$$ bowls.....JMHO As an aside with the CF Playoff, I don't think a team should be selected in preference to another team in the same conference who won that conference's championship.....why have a conference championship then? I realize it was an anomaly with Ohio State and Penn State this year.

However, as far as subjectivity/objectivity.....both of them have their issues.

Interesting topic FDB: I think one major difference is the number of games played in the regular season (over twice as many in B-ball). This give twice as many data points to draw conclusions from. Second, in b-ball the B1G doesn't have the same "reputation" as it does in football. Specifically in football OSU, Michigan, PSU and maybe MSU lately. If one of those teams win the B1G it is automatically assumed they are one of the top 4 teams in the country. What will be the true test is what happens when one of those don't win it, will that winner still get the same respect? Let's just say that PU came out of the West Division and won the B1G. Would they get one of the top 4 spots?

Bottom line, I think currently the B1G in football is looked at like the ACC is in B-ball. As long as the "normally" strong teams finish at the top it is assumed all is right with the world and they deserve to be at the top in the country.

There is no way to do this, but I think it would be interesting to see what would the seed/ranking be for MSU if they had our resume this year and we had theirs? I'm not going to suggest they would be a 2 seed for sure, but they wouldn't be a 4 seed either. Reputations and past performance do influence people in both football and basketball.

Dry makes an interesting observation to me. What would happen if the Committee did a "blind" selection for the seeding....sort of like when the put Resume A-team against Resume B-team? Then the AD's would probably want one veto, like with the UN Security council or something.