|
Post by kiyoat on Dec 12, 2017 8:29:29 GMT -6
For the record, my support for the autobid going to the regular season champion has nothing to do with the SLT in SF or any perceived unfairness. Truth is USD fans live here too and we could just as easily buy tickets and go. I am in favor of resetting the session passes and ending the grandfathering in that has gone on when UND enters the conference. Just call it starting over and everyone has a fair shot. My support for the regular season champ has more to do with putting some oomph in the regular season. Winning the conference should mean something. Right now the games don't mean anything. Just don't finish last, get in the SLT, win 3 games, dance. 1. I agree that the 2-year all-sessions option and the renewal first option needs to go away for the SLT. It is not an appropriate model for a conference tournament. The Jacks fans will still fill the place with blue, supporting the SLT dis-proportionally. (That's not a bad thing IMO. Support is support, and money is money) It would just give other fan bases the "option" of growing in their support of their teams, and not getting boxed out of the best seats multiple years in advance. 2. The SLT isn't going away. In fact, the last holdout conference, (The Ivy League) recently added a season-ending tournament last year, and it was a big success. 3. A better option might be for all the mid-major and high-major programs to boycot the big dance unless they agree to stop favoring power conferences with all of the at-large bids. An alternate tournament for mid-majors could be a bargaining chip, or maybe even a better solution IMO. Building your resume during the season needs to mean something for more than just bubble teams in power conferences with .500 conference records.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Dec 12, 2017 18:09:12 GMT -6
Yoteforever,
I am in agreement with you regarding the need for the Power 5 to be in a different tourney than the rest of us. Maybe make it more than just the power 5 but there should be 2 different tourney's like they do for the FCS. I am sure the mid major tourney would get pretty decent TV coverage as the major tourney would get. I really hope that whatever happens that they have a situation where every regular season and tourney champ gets into the NCAA Tourney. It would satisfy the fairness angle and the money and fan interest angle all at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other because it can be both.
|
|
|
Post by usdcoyote on Dec 12, 2017 21:08:49 GMT -6
SDSU beat UND tonight by 36 points. That's a pretty good ass whooping. I have to think this will be quite the season long battle between us 2 for the conference title.
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Dec 12, 2017 21:15:10 GMT -6
SDSU beat UND tonight by 36 points. That's a pretty good ass whooping. I have to think this will be quite the season long battle between us 2 for the conference title. Where was the game played? NDSU kicked the crap out of them just recently too up in Grand Forks to boot. Is UND that bad or is the Summit just that much better a league than the Big Sky? The way things are looking UND might have a tough road when they join the MVFC/Summit, but they do have a few years to up their game. I am glad they're joining though, they should make a great addition.
|
|
|
Post by usdcoyote on Dec 12, 2017 22:00:04 GMT -6
SDSU beat UND tonight by 36 points. That's a pretty good ass whooping. I have to think this will be quite the season long battle between us 2 for the conference title. Where was the game played? NDSU kicked the crap out of them just recently too up in Grand Forks to boot. Is UND that bad or is the Summit just that much better a league than the Big Sky? The way things are looking UND might have a tough road when they join the MVFC/Summit, but they do have a few years to up their game. I am glad they're joining though, they should make a great addition. Ya, ndsu beat UND by 9 on Saturday. The game tonight was played in Brookings.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 12, 2017 22:16:21 GMT -6
Last year Summit had a conference RPI of 17 and Big Sky was at 28. Year before Summit was 11 and Big Sky 27. The last time I see the Big Sky finishing the year ranked higher was back in the 2009-10 season. UND was unimpressive in non-conference play last year but coasted to a conference title anyways.
UND is looking worse so far though. It's been an especially rough couple of weeks. 7 point win against Presentation College, 43 point loss to Creighton, 9 point loss at home to NDSU (trailed the entire game), and then a 36 point loss in Brookings. I'm guessing they do well in conference play anyways. Coaches/Media picked them 6/5 in the preseason poll.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 12, 2017 22:22:53 GMT -6
I'm disappointed we never played UND in Men's Basketball after the Great West. We played them in, I believe, every single other sport that USD sponsors, but we never got our men together on the court. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Dec 12, 2017 22:55:46 GMT -6
Last year Summit had a conference RPI of 17 and Big Sky was at 28. Year before Summit was 11 and Big Sky 27. The last time I see the Big Sky finishing the year ranked higher was back in the 2009-10 season. UND was unimpressive in non-conference play last year but coasted to a conference title anyways. UND is looking worse so far though. It's been an especially rough couple of weeks. 7 point win against Presentation College, 43 point loss to Creighton, 9 point loss at home to NDSU (trailed the entire game), and then a 36 point loss in Brookings. I'm guessing they do well in conference play anyways. Coaches/Media picked them 6/5 in the preseason poll. You're on top of your game with this info.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Dec 13, 2017 10:31:46 GMT -6
Yoteforever, I am in agreement with you regarding the need for the Power 5 to be in a different tourney than the rest of us. Maybe make it more than just the power 5 but there should be 2 different tourney's like they do for the FCS. I am sure the mid major tourney would get pretty decent TV coverage as the major tourney would get. I really hope that whatever happens that they have a situation where every regular season and tourney champ gets into the NCAA Tourney. It would satisfy the fairness angle and the money and fan interest angle all at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other because it can be both. Separating the tournaments would be a death blow to the mid-majors and is exactly what the P5 (+ Big East & AAC) wants as they could then keep all that March Madness money for themselves. It would be institutionalizing that there are two different levels of basketball. The mid-major NC would get as much coverage as the FCS championship does in relation to the CFP. It would be a really bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Dec 13, 2017 10:47:37 GMT -6
Separating the tournaments would be a death blow to the mid-majors and is exactly what the P5 (+ Big East & AAC) wants as they could then keep all that March Madness money for themselves. It would be institutionalizing that there are two different levels of basketball. The mid-major NC would get as much coverage as the FCS championship does in relation to the CFP. It would be a really bad idea. That is an excellent point. The amount of money the big dance brings is huge. I guess the main reason to care about the regular season is that rising from a 14-16 seed to a 11-13 seed actually gives us a puncher's chance of winning a tourney game (which increases revenue substantially).
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Dec 13, 2017 10:55:20 GMT -6
I didn't take the financial repercussions into consideration, and you're probably correct. I'd like to see what our payout is from that tournament. If anyone knows, that'd be an interesting fact to know.
My point was, and still remains ( less the financial considerations ) is it would be fun to play in a national championship tournament against your peers with a reasonable hope you could advance deep into it and possibly win it. Again I will draw the parallel of USD's women's WNIT run. 7000+ in the Dome ( also big crowds in earlier rounds )is more than the 150 or so that traveled to Ames when we played Stanford.
I get both sides of the argument, I guess for me personally, I'd rather see our teams play 4-5 games post season with the hype building with every win. Winning the SLT would be great, but then to go pi$$ pounded by Kansas wouldn't be so fun. Up until tipoff the board of posters ( us ) could play the "what if" scenario over and over trying to build a case we could do it, but the reality is maybe less than 10 15 seeds have ever won a first round game and zero 16 seeds have done it.
That's my only point. Maybe financially it isn't prudent.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Dec 13, 2017 11:35:28 GMT -6
I don't even think it is monetary. All that big NCAA money, really, by the time it trickles through the conference office and is split up, that one unit isn't that great amount of money.
It's more about a place at the table. That the University of South Dakota is a D1 institution. Playing in a lesser tournament is being relegated to "small school" or 1AA status.
Thing is, it can be done. Plenty of examples of small schools that have climbed the ranks of CBB and are now highly respected basketball schools. Creighton, UNI, WSU, Gonzaga, quite a few of those old Big East schools. There is no reason USD can't become a UNI level school and become a nationally ranked program. Going to the lesser level though, it will never happen then.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Dec 13, 2017 11:58:19 GMT -6
$272,620 is the "unit" payout per team per appearance in the big dance for 2017. So in a normal year where our 16-seed loses, the Summit will be paid $272,620 each year for six years. We then distribute the money 8-ways, or 9 or 10 depending on how many teams. So that's $34K per team for 6 years. Since the Summit has had auto-bids each year, the payouts "stack". $34,078 x 6 = 200K each year.
It isn't much for one-bid leagues, but getting an at-large would double it, and getting a win would also double it.
For major conferences the payout is substantial.
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on Dec 13, 2017 13:06:18 GMT -6
I think a realistic goal for any mid-major program is to reach the Sweet 16. It is great to make the Dance, but winning your first 2 games and advancing to the Sweet 16 would be off the charts as far as publicity and hype for any mid-major. To have a realistic shot of advancing to the Sweet 16, you need to be 12 or higher seed. This is one of the main reasons the regular season is so important. It will take an outstanding season by the Yotes or any other Summit League team to get a 12 or higher seed. This Article shows the chances of different seeds reaching the Sweet 16 and Final 4. The odds of reaching the Sweet 16 are as follows: Seed Percentage to the Sweet 16 1 86.8 2 63.2 3 50.8 4 46.1 5 33.6 6 32.8 7 18.0 8 9.4 (winner of 8-9 game has always played 1 seed in second game) 9 3.9 10 18.0 11 14.8 12 15.6 13 4.7 (surprised by the big difference between the 12 & 13 seeds) 14 1.6 15 .8 16 0 A couple of other interesting facts from the article is that since 1985, the top 4 seeds have advanced to the Final 4 83.6% of the time and no team lower than a 11 seed has advanced to the Final 4.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Dec 13, 2017 13:49:57 GMT -6
^ not only would that be huge for visibility and recruiting, If just one Summit team got to the Sweet 16 one year, the payout would be more like 800K for the Summit each year for the next 6 years. Add that to the other 5 "stacked" payouts, and each school would be getting around 300K each year for 6 years.
The crappy teams in the Missouri Valley have been making very good money from Creighton and Wichita State for that reason.
|
|