This, to me, is a good example of bad journalism, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.

The headline says the NCAA Tournament lacks mid-major teams in the sweet 16 "by design," and several times throughout the article the writer says things like:

Quote:

---

But really, the fact that Middle Tennessee State was the only 12-seed or lower to win its first-round matchupand the fact that all mid-majors are seeded so lowis a product of the NCAA's design.

---

Quote:

---

So it's quite important that the NCAA design a system that benefits its fellow money-makers.

---

Quote:

---

All this has been thoroughly reported on before; it's not some giant reveal that the tournament itself is set up to help the established top-tier programs advance and gobble up revenue.

---

But, is any of that true? Were any mid-major teams underseeded? And, more importantly, if you're operating under the assumption that the tournament is gamed toward the high-major teams, how would you fix it?

MAYBE Wichita was underseeded, but they're hardly a cinderella team and we talked on another thread about how they were a tough team to seed because they had hardly beaten anyone any good.

Also, if a team is seeded higher, then doesn't that disqualify them from cinderella status?

This did get me thinking though, what if the selection committee had a guideline, maybe not a hard and fast rule, but a "when possible" type thing to prioritize matchups between power conference teams and mid-major teams in the opening rounds? This year, for example, they could have broken up the Northwestern/Vandy, Wisconsin/Va Tech, Miami/Michigan State, Michigan/Oklahoma State games. On the flip side they could have moved a couple of teams around to avoid St. Mary's/VCU, Dayton/Wichita, Butler/Winthrop and Rhode Island/Creighton.

The "first four" games were a way to include more teams, but in fact just trims those conference tournament champions from lower conference down.

Would any of the teams you mentioned be Cinderella's?

Wichita state, butler, st Mary's, creighton, etc I just think of as good basketball programs. Not sure why there should be some kind of artificial distinction between programs on the basis of what kind of football program they have.

Matsui said:

---

The "first four" games were a way to include more teams, but in fact just trims those conference tournament champions from lower conference down.

---

Not really. I mean none of the 16s ever win and a 15 has only won like twice right? I guess by having the first four, you bump two smaller conference champions teams down a seed line, but that seems pretty marginal right? I don't think that's the sole reason for the lack of cinderella teams.

Two of the "first four" games are between teams that would be 16/15 seeds anyway, and conference champions can't play in the other two first four games, they're for the last four at-large teams in the field.

The lack of Cinderellas has more to do with the players on the smaller conference teams generally not being as talented or athletic as the players on the major conference teams.

mdanyc03 said:

---

Would any of the teams you mentioned be Cinderella's?

Wichita state, butler, st Mary's, creighton, etc I just think of as good basketball programs. Not sure why there should be some kind of artificial distinction between programs on the basis of what kind of football program they have.

---

I probably should have separated out the "this did get me thinking..." part because it's really a separate issue from the cinderella bit.

The reason I think there might be some value in breaking up those teams early on is that a lot of times we have no idea how good mid-major teams are because it's hard for a lot of them to schedule good games.

Plus I think I'd be more inclined to watch Dayton vs Michigan and VCU vs Oklahoma State just because of the high major vs mid major factor.

Now, the other side of that is by not breaking them up, you ensure that at least some of them make it further into the field, so it kind of cuts both ways.

GE said:

---

The lack of Cinderellas has more to do with the players on the smaller conference teams generally not being as talented or athletic as the players on the major conference teams.

---

I think the argument is that that's always been the case, but it seems like we have fewer cinderella teams making runs in the tournament these days.

People will ***** about anything. If there would have been more Cinderellas then they would have talked about how bad the committee seeded the teams.

Yeah, I think there's definitely an argument to be made that there are fewer "cinderella" teams because of the rise of mid-major programs having national prominence. Especially the ones that absolutely dominate their leagues. Because they're so good and earn such high seeds, there aren't as many smaller conference teams on the middle-to-low seed lines.

I just picked a random year from a while back (2000) and basically everyone on the low double-digit seed lines is a mid-major. Of the 16 10-13 seeds, only Arkansas and Seton Hall came from major conferences.

This year, of the 18(thanks to the first four) 10-13 seeds, eight come from power conferences, and a few others Wichita, Xavier, Dayton, VCU... are prominent mid-major programs.

I wish there was a requirement that all of the P5 conference teams have to play a true mid major team on the road at least once a year. I remember last year Michigan State played at Western Michigan and North Caroline played at Northern Iowa. Last year it would have been cool to see A&M play at SFA and to have Texas play at UTA, especially since the Mavs have a real arena and no longer play on the stage at Texas Hall.

Of course I am not holding my breath to see Kentucky play at Northern Kentucky anytime soon.

As for this year Wichita State got hosed on seeding by a bad Valley and a weak Non Conference schedule. Not holding my breath for KU to visit Wichita but I don't think a game with the Ags would have gone well for us.

This was not a great year for mid majors. The A-10 was down, and the WCC had two good teams but not much else (thanks BYU),

Wichita's non-con wasn't spectacularly weak, but they didn't beat any of the few good teams they played. They played Oklahoma State, Louisville and Michigan State.

Scheduling though is an unsolvable problem unless the NCAA breaks up the conference structure and centralizes scheduling or something.

Part of the problem is there are just too many D1 teams.

In some sort of utopian future, they'd cut them in half and then have some sort of english soccer setup where teams play themselves up and down each year. And in "non-con" you'd only be allowed to play two teams from the lower division.

For the tournament at the end of the year, have the lower division tournament the month before and have the top 8 teams or something get into the higher division's tournament.

McInnis80 said:

---

I wish there was a requirement that all of the P5 conference teams have to play a true mid major team on the road at least once a year.

---

Make it a requirement and many teams would still skirt it simply by scheduling the bottom-feeders from those conferences.

What we really need (but will never happen) is for the NCAA to take possession of maybe 5 or so OOC games on everyone's schedule. Schedule quality matchups based on previous year's results in an effort to get a lot of data points between ALL the conferences. A secondary benefit would be an additional revenue stream to re NCAA, so they don't have to be idiots and expand the tourney just to desperately try to make extra money.

bobinator said:

---

GE said:

---

The lack of Cinderellas has more to do with the players on the smaller conference teams generally not being as talented or athletic as the players on the major conference teams.

---

I think the argument is that that's always been the case, but it seems like we have fewer cinderella teams making runs in the tournament these days.

---

There was an SI article recently discussing how the transfer/grad transfer explosion in past few years has severely hurt the small schools. The best players more and more are getting cherry picked by the larger schools.

Apparently it has gotten so bad that some small school conference coaches are deliberately trying to slow down their player's progress in getting a degree. So they can't do the grad transfer thing.

I hadn't even thought about that as a factor, but yeah, that can't help.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

bobinator said:

---

GE said:

---

The lack of Cinderellas has more to do with the players on the smaller conference teams generally not being as talented or athletic as the players on the major conference teams.

---

I think the argument is that that's always been the case, but it seems like we have fewer cinderella teams making runs in the tournament these days.

---

There was an SI article recently discussing how the transfer/grad transfer explosion in past few years has severely hurt the small schools. The best players more and more are getting cherry picked by the larger schools.

Apparently it has gotten so bad that some small school conference coaches are deliberately trying to slow down their player's progress in getting a degree. So they can't do the grad transfer thing.

---

I don't get why basketball players do the grad transfer thing. What is the incentive? There's no meaningful thing a 24 year old could possibly achieve playing college basketball. Because by the time one is that old, the best players in their class are playing their FIFTH or SIXTH season in the NBA. Even if you win everything with an undefeated season with a national title and player of the year: whoop dee doo! There's lots of teenagers that could get straight As in kindergarten. And they're still not getting paid and their pro prospects are getting lower.

Other than serious students trying to get a free year on scholarship, why would any legitimate basketball player use the grad transfer route? The incentives seem incredibly low, what could the NCAA do?

To be clear, you're saying you don't understand the incentive for a basketball player to want to be on a team that's better at basketball?

Why would you not do the grad transfer thing if you're good enough for someone better to want you on their team.

I actually think the grad transfer rule is one of the best things about college sports in recent years. If you've worked hard enough and earned your degree, congrats, you get one year to play for the best team you can get on and enjoy it.

And I wasted my time to read this?

Where any midmajors under seeded? Yes there were some. Why was Middle Tennessee a 12? Many thought they would get in without winning CUSA tourney.

Why on heavens earth was Wichita State a ten? This is a 7 point faviorte to the 7 seed Dayton that they played. If Vegas can see they are better why can't the committee? WSU was 8th in Kenpom and were gonna seed you as a 10?

Matchups that reflect this idea. Wichita vs. Dayton. This is so we can get one midmajor to knock another one out. Don't want another run out of one of them. SM vs. VCU another one where we got to remove a tourney crasher from the tourney.

Um sir. UL took 2 grad transfers who really wanted a chance to play one time in the tourney. This is why they do it.

Gawker has a bunch of chimps in a NY basement writing articles for them.

If you watched the St. Mary's - Arizona game it was clear the refs wanted Arizona to win. Several phantom calls down the stretch that helped Arizona. Tha announcers kept saying the calls were bad and I agree.

I would be all for P5 conference teams playing anyone of significance on the road, but especially mid-majors.

Part of the reason few watch early season basketball games (on TV or at the game) is because there aren't meaningful and emotional games. Enough with scheduling 14 home games against punching bags, and then when teams do schedule against another P5 school, it is on a neutral court at a destination place.

I think those P5 teams that are willing to go play at a smaller nearby school would find a better atmosphere than always playing those teams at home.


I'd be interested in seeing what impact the conference networks will have on basketball scheduling in the near future. They want content, and A&M vs SC State or Denver doesn't drive viewership, but on the other hand, I'm not sure A&M going to Sam Houston St does either.