Huggins: I want I-AA Basketball

[TexasTerror]

I guess we can have our BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION, eh? A legitimate BCS for the "I-AA" schools of basketball!

Are you kidding me?!? What's next, I-AA baseball?


“We ought to do what football does and go to a Division 1-A and 1-AA,” he said.

At present there are 334 teams in Division 1, ranging from the Special Ks — Kentucky and Kansas — who are both 24-1 to poor, poor Marist, who is 1-25.

As far as the NCAA is concerned, they are all equals.

Huggins knows they are not, not in facilities, not in recruiting, not in philosophy.

http://www.timeswv.com/wvu_sports/local_story_051025944.html

[CopperCat]

A decent idea, but it would kinda take away from the big dance IMO. You wouldn't see as many George Masons or Gonzagas come out of the woodwork each year, which is the best part of the tournament. It certainly sucks watching your team get destroyed every year in OOC play, but that's the price we must pay to give Cinderella a chance. I'm for leaving it the way it is.

[FargoBison]

Huggins can go play in traffic, I-AA basketball equals the destruction of college basketball. The Big Dance would become The Big Dud.

It only works for football because the budget of the top FBS football team is in a different stratosphere than the top budget FCS team. While in basketball it is much easier to be competitive and if the high major teams had to go on the road and play the mid-majors the gap would be much smaller.

Marist does suck this year but just a few years ago they beat Oklahoma State in the first round of the NIT and had 25 wins.

[bluehenbillk]

See this is where the BCS lovers argument falls apart. If the BCS is such a great idea then why don't they have a BCS in any other sport, mainly hoops? Oh yeah, because none of the reasons they throw out there for defending the BCS would hold any water.....

[Big Al]

I'd be for it if there was some sort of relegation system. That would be awesome.

[DSUrocks07]

I'd be for it if there was some sort of relegation system. That would be awesome.

xhurrayx

That would be EPIC xnodx

[T-Dog]

I'd be for it if there was some sort of relegation system. That would be awesome.

It would be quite the spectacle to see who can not suck as much as to survive. Do the same thing to NCAA football, and then you'd be swimming in money. Imagine Mississippi State vs Arkansas in a relegation game with App St taking the losers spot in the SEC? People would be losing their minds.

[zymergy]

The glaring problem with the NCAA Hoops Tourney is the Play-in game. I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that a auto bid team should be playing in that game. It should be played between teams that are on the bubble. It would make the game more interesting if played between say Maryland and Tenn (just picking names out of the air here) than Alabama St vs Morehead St. (last years game).

[NHwildEcat]

Huggins can go play in traffic, I-AA basketball equals the destruction of college basketball. The Big Dance would become The Big Dud.

It only works for football because the budget of the top FBS football team is in a different stratosphere than the top budget FCS team. While in basketball it is much easier to be competitive and if the high major teams had to go on the road and play the mid-majors the gap would be much smaller.

Marist does suck this year but just a few years ago they beat Oklahoma State in the first round of the NIT and had 25 wins.

I don't disagree with yout...but I think you're making the Big Dance out to be something bigger then it is. I love March Madness and all that goes with it, but really only 16 or so teams year to year have a legitimate chance at a National Championship. You will never see a team from America East for example win more then 1 game...thank you Vermont. It is an unfair system how it is, where the rich get richer and the poor get their assed kicked by the rich.

Yeah if you split it up you would have less "George Mason's" but hell, right now they are talking about adding more teams to it...thus watering it down. There are too many schools that are Division 1, plain and simple...something needs to be done. Maybe regionalization? I don't know. But just because it has been successful under it's current format does not mean it will be successful in the future.

College basketball is already only exciting during the tournament...maybe a split would lead to a more important regular season.

[NHwildEcat]

The glaring problem with the NCAA Hoops Tourney is the Play-in game. I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that a auto bid team should be playing in that game. It should be played between teams that are on the bubble. It would make the game more interesting if played between say Maryland and Tenn (just picking names out of the air here) than Alabama St vs Morehead St. (last years game).

Right...It is unfair to the schools who won their conference. They just get over the excitement of knowing they are going to the big dance, until they find out they are going to possibly be stopped at the door because the dance is full...it shouldn't be that way.

[CrackerRiley]

I don't see how a split would take "the George Masons" out of the big dance. With 334 teams a split of 50:50 leaving around 170 in the top division would mean a team like George Mason would be in that top division. Realistically, a team lower than that is not going to make a run in the tournament.

I'd be all for it. I do like the challenge of a team like App playing their heart out to get into the tournament but I know they don't have a realistic chance of getting past the 2nd round.

[PhoenixSupreme]

Suppose that there was a I-AA division for basketball, and every conference that is currently not in the FBS is relegated to it. Does that mean that teams like Villanova and Georgetown, who play FCS football and FBS-conference basketball would have to move down to I-AA or to another conference? If not, you would have a lot of basketball-only schools or FCS football schools looking to move to one of the FBS conferences for basketball only.

[FargoBison]

I don't disagree with yout...but I think you're making the Big Dance out to be something bigger then it is. I love March Madness and all that goes with it, but really only 16 or so teams year to year have a legitimate chance at a National Championship. You will never see a team from America East for example win more then 1 game...thank you Vermont. It is an unfair system how it is, where the rich get richer and the poor get their assed kicked by the rich.

Yeah if you split it up you would have less "George Mason's" but hell, right now they are talking about adding more teams to it...thus watering it down. There are too many schools that are Division 1, plain and simple...something needs to be done. Maybe regionalization? I don't know. But just because it has been successful under it's current format does not mean it will be successful in the future.

College basketball is already only exciting during the tournament...maybe a split would lead to a more important regular season.

My school was in DII for years, it sucked, which is why I want no part of this division 1.5 idea. It is bad for us, maybe it is good for a school like UNH, but some of us are interested in fielding competitive teams and having our school compete with the big boys.

The only thing that needs to be done is have the last at large teams play in, that I can agree with 100%. It is BS that a team that earned an autobid has to play in.

[chrisattsu]

My school was in DII for years, it sucked, which is why I want no part of this division 1.5 idea. It is bad for us, maybe it is good for a school like UNH, but some of us are interested in fielding competitive teams and having our school compete with the big boys.

The only thing that needs to be done is have the last at large teams play in, that I can agree with 100%. It is BS that a team that earned an autobid has to play in.

I still follow a D2 team, and I agree that I-AA basketball is a bad idea. You move to D1 to compete against the best in the nation. If you are unable to do that, you can always move to D2 and try your luck there.


This is part of the reason that schools like Tarleton and West Texas A&M are leery about moving up. In the last eight years, my Texans have been ranked Number 1 in the Nation on three different occasions (03, 04, 06). I have watched Tarleton go to the NCAA tournament 6 times, reach the sweet sixteen 4 times, elite eight twice, and the final four once.

We could jump up to the Southland Conference or the Great West, but the best we can hope for is 15-seed and probably get bounced in the first/second round.

[FargoBison]

I still follow a D2 team, and I agree that I-AA basketball is a bad idea. You move to D1 to compete against the best in the nation. If you are unable to do that, you can always move to D2 and try your luck there.


This is part of the reason that schools like Tarleton and West Texas A&M are leery about moving up. In the last eight years, my Texans have been ranked Number 1 in the Nation on three different occasions (03, 04, 06). I have watched Tarleton go to the NCAA tournament 6 times, reach the sweet sixteen 4 times, elite eight twice, and the final four once.

We could jump up to the Southland Conference or the Great West, but the best we can hope for is 15-seed and probably get bounced in the first/second round.

Agreed, if you want a better shot at titles and winning DII is there, I don't know why we need another DII esque division.

I am glad your school has found its niche. The one good thing about the new DI rules is that it has finally given DII some stability.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

A decent idea, but it would kinda take away from the big dance IMO. You wouldn't see as many George Masons or Gonzagas come out of the woodwork each year, which is the best part of the tournament. It certainly sucks watching your team get destroyed every year in OOC play, but that's the price we must pay to give Cinderella a chance. I'm for leaving it the way it is.

I think there is plenty of merit to this. Anyone who thinks Rider basketball and Kentucky basketball are in the same league, is fooling themselves. The issue here is that the NCAA has their $billion+ TV contract for the tournament. And even Rider gets a cut of that despite having a basketball team that is more on par with division 3. At the same time, it's the BCS conferences which drive the TV viewership for the sport all year. They get a great cut of the NCAA tourney money, but I can see how the idea of an NEC, MEAC, or Southland conference getting tourney money (or even being in the tournament) can be an issue for a current BCS school.

And let's face it..."cinderellas" are based on seed, not just a school. So if Northwestern was a 12 seed and went on a run to the Final 4, the fans of the "little guy" would be pulling for them just as much as any other 12 seed.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

See this is where the BCS lovers argument falls apart. If the BCS is such a great idea then why don't they have a BCS in any other sport, mainly hoops? Oh yeah, because none of the reasons they throw out there for defending the BCS would hold any water.....

I'll play devils advocate. By the same notion, the FCS fans should be just as supportive of a split in basketball as they are in football, right? You read things on sites like this putting the FCS "way of life" up on a pedestal. So it should stand that that same separation in basketball should be instituted as the FCS fans want for football. That wouldn't be the case of course if FCS football fans really wished their schools were BCS level, right?

[FargoBison]

I think there is plenty of merit to this. Anyone who thinks Rider basketball and Kentucky basketball are in the same league, is fooling themselves. The issue here is that the NCAA has their $billion+ TV contract for the tournament. And even Rider gets a cut of that despite having a basketball team that is more on par with division 3. At the same time, it's the BCS conferences which drive the TV viewership for the sport all year. They get a great cut of the NCAA tourney money, but I can see how the idea of an NEC, MEAC, or Southland conference getting tourney money (or even being in the tournament) can be an issue for a current BCS school.

And let's face it..."cinderellas" are based on seed, not just a school. So if Northwestern was a 12 seed and went on a run to the Final 4, the fans of the "little guy" would be pulling for them just as much as any other 12 seed.

No, watching Duke play a 14-15 Big 10 team would be horrible. It is all about the little guy. A crappy power conference team a Cinderella, give me a break.

These mid-major leagues, especially the lower tier conferenes, get maybe $5 million a piece(that is the SLC's cut this year). The Big 12 got about $25 million from the NCAA tournament. Some of these BCS schools honestly make me sick, everything is setup for them, just shut up and cash your check.

One more thing, Rider beat Mississippi State this year, their RPI is around 150, they would slaughter any DIII team.

[FargoBison]

I'll play devils advocate. By the same notion, the FCS fans should be just as supportive of a split in basketball as they are in football, right? You read things on sites like this putting the FCS "way of life" up on a pedestal. So it should stand that that same separation in basketball should be instituted as the FCS fans want for football. That wouldn't be the case of course if FCS football fans really wished their schools were BCS level, right?


The FCS works in football because schools like Ohio State have football budgets of $30 million plus. Their basketball budget is something like $6-7 million, which is larger than most if not all mid-majors, but we aren't talking tens of millions larger.

And at least for me, the fact that the FCS has a playoff, makes it easier to support the split. You can't really compare football and basketball.




I am sorry if I came on strong here, but mid-major basketball is a passion of mine, this crap that Huggins is spewing is coming right into my wheelhouse.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I understand Bison, we all have our passions.

Feel free to replace Rider with another school if you wish. And also be sure to replace a "mid major" basketball team in the scenario with a D2 school vs a mid-major in which the D2 school won. They are D2 yet still beat a D1 school. Does that mean that the Division 2 schools all need to be in the Division 1 tournament?

You touched on a great point: budget.

You say that the reason the split (FBS vs FCS) works is because schools like Ohio St. have such a higher budget than an FCS school. And you are correct.

But it's selective fact sharing here if you don't also mention that the Ohio St. basketball budget is just as much larger than a "mid major" basketball program in that state like Wright St, Cleveland St, etc.

So if the "athletic budget" argument holds for football, then it must also for basketball. You can't simply push the difference in basketball budgets aside here.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

And another important point FB, is the actual performance.

While there might be the occasional anomaly like Rider beating MSU, or a D2 school beating a D1 mid-major, it's clearly FAR from the ordinary.

Just look at the NCAA Tournament the past decade:
40 Final Four teams
*38 of those from BCS conferences
2 non-BCS (George Mason, Memphis)

* = the 38 figure includes Final Four appearances by Big East non-football schools

I'm going from memory here. So perhaps I've forgotten a school of two and the numbers are more like 36 or 40 for BCS schools. Please correct in a response and I'll edit this post.

[FargoBison]

I understand Bison, we all have our passions.

Feel free to replace Rider with another school if you wish. And also be sure to replace a "mid major" basketball team in the scenario with a D2 school vs a mid-major in which the D2 school won. They are D2 yet still beat a D1 school. Does that mean that the Division 2 schools all need to be in the Division 1 tournament?

You touched on a great point: budget.

You say that the reason the split (FBS vs FCS) works is because schools like Ohio St. have such a higher budget than an FCS school. And you are correct.

But it's selective fact sharing here if you don't also mention that the Ohio St. basketball budget is just as much larger than a "mid major" basketball program in that state like Wright St, Cleveland St, etc.

So if the "athletic budget" argument holds for football, then it must also for basketball. You can't simply push the difference in basketball budgets aside here.

It is much larger, probably three or four times as big of budgets for schools like Cleveland State. Creighton probably has one of the bigger budgets for a "mid-major" and it is still about 2.5 million less than Ohio State.

But unlike football, where you need a bunch of great players to be very good, in basketball all it takes is five or six and you can make a lot of noise. A massive budget doesn't buy as much. So again, the sports aren't really comparable,

For example, Kansas has a budget that is about eight times larger than NDSU's for men's basketball and we were very competitive with them in the big dance last year. Meanwhile, Ohio State football has a budget about 9 times larger than our football budget, I wouldn't feel very comfortable with even putting our best team ever against them in a given year. There is just no way, short of some miracle, where we could compete with them on the gridiron.

Our men's basketball has been very competitive with top programs up until our last class graduated in 2009. Now they are rebuilding, but that is the cycle of mid-major basketball.

[FargoBison]

Just look at the NCAA Tournament the past decade:
40 Final Four teams
*38 of those from BCS conferences
2 non-BCS (George Mason, Memphis)

* = the 38 figure includes Final Four appearances by Big East non-football schools

I'm going from memory here. So perhaps I've forgotten a school of two and the numbers are more like 36 or 40 for BCS schools. Please correct in a response and I'll edit this post.

I am not surprised by that at all, there are more BCS schools and most of the top mid-majors open with tough games or against each other. The odds just aren't that great to get a team to the final four.

But that doesn't mean we need I-AA basketball. Parity has been increasing in college basketball, maybe that is why Huggins wants a split, BCS schools certainly aren't being wronged. They get the bulk of the money(TV and tournament), can play a ton of home games(more money), and as long as they are about .500 in conference they will probably be in the dance.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

FB, there is also a HUGE difference in facilities we're talking about. Many/most of the BCS conference schools play in large arenas with attendance numbers off the charts. Meanwhile, the bulk of those outside the BCS level (MWC and CUSA are closer to the BCS conferences in facilities on average), specifically at the mid-major level as playing in much smaller locales, many in gyms.

You're points about it only taking 5-6 good players is valid. But that also must hold for D2 schools since they only need 5-6 good players...and could have more quality athletes than many lower conference D1 schools.

I just feel that the numbers (past 10 final fours) can be convincing that there is a bigger gap between lower level/mid-major and the BCS schools than there is between D2 and lower level/mid-major schools. Hence the points Huggins was making.


And note, I'm a graduate of Umass. The A10 does seem to be on it's own tier between the BCS level and mid-major with some high quality programs like Xavier and others with top caliber facilities. But there's also Fordham there...which plays in the tiny Rose Hill gym...and they're real bad...like NEC bad.

[FargoBison]

FB, there is also a HUGE difference in facilities we're talking about. Many/most of the BCS conference schools play in large arenas with attendance numbers off the charts. Meanwhile, the bulk of those outside the BCS level (MWC and CUSA are closer to the BCS conferences in facilities on average), specifically at the mid-major level as playing in much smaller locales, many in gyms.

You're points about it only taking 5-6 good players is valid. But that also must hold for D2 schools since they only need 5-6 good players...and could have more quality athletes than many lower conference D1 schools.

I just feel that the numbers (past 10 final fours) can be convincing that there is a bigger gap between lower level/mid-major and the BCS schools than there is between D2 and lower level/mid-major schools. Hence the points Huggins was making.


And note, I'm a graduate of Umass. The A10 does seem to be on it's own tier between the BCS level and mid-major with some high quality programs like Xavier and others with top caliber facilities. But there's also Fordham there...which plays in the tiny Rose Hill gym...and they're real bad...like NEC bad.

Again facilities are different but that gap isn't as wide as football. Davidson played in a gym and they had a very competitive team for a few years. Now they aren't as good, but that is the cycle of mid-majors hoops. Schools can rise and fall quickly, football doesn't have that kind fluidity.

I don't know why we are talking about DII. High school recruiting for DII is way below DI, even the worst of the mid-majors get much better recruits. Every basketball recruit dreams of a DI offer and that was a huge issue for NDSU when we were in DII. These kids want nothing more than to play in the big dance.

DII is built more on DI recruits that washed out and JUCO players that couldn't meet DI admission standards. Winona State had some good teams in recent years because they could upgrade their roster with transfers and JUCOs. Lets not talk about DII, it is a non-starter.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I am not surprised by that at all, there are more BCS schools and most of the top mid-majors open with tough games or against each other. The odds just aren't that great to get a team to the final four.

But that doesn't mean we need I-AA basketball. Parity has been increasing in college basketball, maybe that is why Huggins wants a split, BCS schools certainly aren't being wronged. They get the bulk of the money(TV and tournament), can play a ton of home games(more money), and as long as they are about .500 in conference they will probably be in the dance.


Just to keep the numbers honest, there are...
347 Division 1 teams
73 are from BCS schools
274 are not

Each of those 347 schools play a regular season schedule and a conference tournament to stake their claim for one of the 65 automatic or at-large bids. If the mid-majors are lower seeds and playing against tougher teams, and if they are in fact at the same level as the BCS teams, then logic dictates that they would win those games regardless of seeds. If you think a 12 seed is as good as a 1-5 seed, then they should win that first game, advance, and beat another higher ranked team.

If they are in fact equal, then the mid-majors would win. But they don't. Only 2 of the last 40 Final Four teams were able to do that. Whether it was luck or skill that made it happen for George Mason, the facts are that only once has a mid-major team (Memphis is hardly a mid-major) played at the same level of the BCS teams enough to actually win on the court.


And FB, I could not disagree more about parity. If anything, it was gone the other way. Just look at those Final Four numbers for the past decade. One could hardly argue that there is parity when clearly the BCS schools have dominated with 38 of the 40 spots (10 of 10 titles, 19 of 20 finals appearances...Memphis the lone non-BCS team). Now look back to the 90's and 80's and see the teams that did make Final Fours. Without having the numbers in front of me, I can tell you that there were more "mid-majors" making it to the Final Four those decades...so there was MORE parity in the past then there is now.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Again facilities are different but that gap isn't as wide as football. Davidson played in a gym and they had a very competitive team for a few years. Now they aren't as good, but that is the cycle of mid-majors hoops. Schools can rise and fall quickly, football doesn't have that kind fluidity.

I don't know why we are talking about DII. High school recruiting for DII is way below DI, even the worst of the mid-majors get much better recruits. Every basketball recruit dreams of a DI offer and that was a huge issue for NDSU when we were in DII. These kids want nothing more than to play in the big dance.

DII is built more on DI recruits that washed out and JUCO players that couldn't meet DI admission standards. Winona State had some good teams in recent years because they could upgrade their roster with transfers and JUCOs. Lets not talk about DII, it is a non-starter.

FB, that cycle exists at all levels for all teams. BCS conferences have schools like Iowa St and Minnesota who were tops at one point, then fell backwards. Ohio St. wasn't much of a power for sometime, then improved and made it to the NCAA finals.


As for making reference to D2, I do so because it is just as relevant. The Huggins comments were about a split within Division 1, much like FBS and FCS. The reason being that the gap between BCS basketball conferences (and a number of other FBS conferences, perhaps the A10 as well) and the rest of those 347 teams is a large one. And when looking at the top D2 teams and the lower D1 teams, the gap is much smaller.


The NCAA is going through with the new NCAA criteria because of schools that are now in D1. We joke and call it the "NJIT rule", but it goes beyond just those new upgrades. It's because of there being such a huge gap between the top 9 conferences and those below. The Southland, MEAC, ASun, Summit, NEC, etc will always have a team that has a solid season playing good basketball. But those teams are lucky if they win a tournament game. In fact, the fans think it's a miracle when they do win...call it an upset. But the very nature of that...having schools that have little to no chance...while it might make for a feel-good story for the fans of those schools and others, it just further shows that there is a clear division within D1: the top, a small middle ground, and the majority of schools are at the bottom.

[FargoBison]

Just to keep the numbers honest, there are...
347 Division 1 teams
73 are from BCS schools
274 are not

Each of those 347 schools play a regular season schedule and a conference tournament to stake their claim for one of the 65 automatic or at-large bids. If the mid-majors are lower seeds and playing against tougher teams, and if they are in fact at the same level as the BCS teams, then logic dictates that they would win those games regardless of seeds. If you think a 12 seed is as good as a 1-5 seed, then they should win that first game, advance, and beat another higher ranked team.

If they are in fact equal, then the mid-majors would win. But they don't. Only 2 of the last 40 Final Four teams were able to do that. Whether it was luck or skill that made it happen for George Mason, the facts are that only once has a mid-major team (Memphis is hardly a mid-major) played at the same level of the BCS teams enough to actually win on the court.


And FB, I could not disagree more about parity. If anything, it was gone the other way. Just look at those Final Four numbers for the past decade. One could hardly argue that there is parity when clearly the BCS schools have dominated with 38 of the 40 spots (10 of 10 titles, 19 of 20 finals appearances...Memphis the lone non-BCS team). Now look back to the 90's and 80's and see the teams that did make Final Fours. Without having the numbers in front of me, I can tell you that there were more "mid-majors" making it to the Final Four those decades...so there was MORE parity in the past then there is now.

I meant there are more BCS teams in the NCAA tournament, not in college basketball. The final four is not the end all be all of parity....

[FargoBison]

FB, that cycle exists at all levels for all teams. BCS conferences have schools like Iowa St and Minnesota who were tops at one point, then fell backwards. Ohio St. wasn't much of a power for sometime, then improved and made it to the NCAA finals.

Your only proving my point of the fluidity of college basketball, schools large and small can shift quickly, in football it takes multiple classes to rebuild a program. This can basically relegate schools to a continual meaningless status, they become perpetual losers. I know this can happen in basketball as well, some schools always struggle but the potential for a meteoric rise is much greater.

NDSU went from a mediocre DII team to beating Wisconsin in one year, all because the basketball team added four players. Those players went on to win at top 10 Marquette the following year and in their senior year became one of favorite upset picks in the NCAA tournament. Bill Self said NDSU had the best point guard they had faced all year, NDSU had closed the gap considerably. Now it is large, but with another good class it can shrink considerably again.

Davidson did the same with Curry but they had an ever bigger rise going to the elite 8, losing to eventual champ Kansas by 2 points. The you have programs like WKU, George Mason, Wichita State, Wisconsin Milwaukee, Butler, etc who all made nice runs.



As for making reference to D2, I do so because it is just as relevant. The Huggins comments were about a split within Division 1, much like FBS and FCS. The reason being that the gap between BCS basketball conferences (and a number of other FBS conferences, perhaps the A10 as well) and the rest of those 347 teams is a large one. And when looking at the top D2 teams and the lower D1 teams, the gap is much smaller.


No it is not, the top teams in the smaller conferences can be very good, even though their conference as a whole aren't that great. The problem is that these teams get 12, 13, 14 and even 15 seeds despite building great records, the NCAA unfairly handicaps mid-majors every year because they don't have strong enough resumes. The fact is they never had a chance to build a resume, is Minnesota going to travel to NDSU, no. Not in a million years, NDSU or any good mid-major has to travel and travel to build a strong resume. Good luck winning multiple top 50 or top 100 road games, even great teams struggle on the road.


The NCAA is going through with the new NCAA criteria because of schools that are now in D1. We joke and call it the "NJIT rule", but it goes beyond just those new upgrades. It's because of there being such a huge gap between the top 9 conferences and those below. The Southland, MEAC, ASun, Summit, NEC, etc will always have a team that has a solid season playing good basketball. But those teams are lucky if they win a tournament game. In fact, the fans think it's a miracle when they do win...call it an upset. But the very nature of that...having schools that have little to no chance...while it might make for a feel-good story for the fans of those schools and others, it just further shows that there is a clear division within D1: the top, a small middle ground, and the majority of schools are at the bottom.


http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/bracket

Look at the final scores, sit here and tell me that these schools are clearly outclassed and belong in a different division.. I've never heard more BS in my life. I know they aren't winning, but they are hardly struggling like school that belong in different division would be.

[Go...gate]

Huggins: do your job at WVU and keep quiet. xcoffeex

[chrisattsu]

As for making reference to D2, I do so because it is just as relevant. The Huggins comments were about a split within Division 1, much like FBS and FCS. The reason being that the gap between BCS basketball conferences (and a number of other FBS conferences, perhaps the A10 as well) and the rest of those 347 teams is a large one. And when looking at the top D2 teams and the lower D1 teams, the gap is much smaller.

The NCAA is going through with the new NCAA criteria because of schools that are now in D1. We joke and call it the "NJIT rule", but it goes beyond just those new upgrades. It's because of there being such a huge gap between the top 9 conferences and those below. The Southland, MEAC, ASun, Summit, NEC, etc will always have a team that has a solid season playing good basketball. But those teams are lucky if they win a tournament game. In fact, the fans think it's a miracle when they do win...call it an upset. But the very nature of that...having schools that have little to no chance...while it might make for a feel-good story for the fans of those schools and others, it just further shows that there is a clear division within D1: the top, a small middle ground, and the majority of schools are at the bottom.

D2s beating D1s is not as rare as FCS teams beating FBS teams because the gap is much smaller between top D2 and Non-Major D1 teams. However, the biggest difference that I see is in recruiting big men. A big man in D2 is usually between 6'6'' and 6'8''.

In following my team, I have watched Tarleton beat teams from the Big XII (Baylor), MWC (TCU), Sun Belt (New Orleans), Southland (Lamar), and come within 9 points of beating a Top-15 Texas A&M on the road (lack of a 'big' cost us the game).

However, you are right about the Southland gap. Our league is so weak that our tourney winner gets the 15 seed, and I can't remember the last time we were a two-bid conference. A team like Sam Houston (with 20+ wins and 11-1 conference record could get upset in the conference tourney) and is unable to advance.

I think this is part of the reason that you are seeing UTSA and Texas State looking at other conferences. If we can get into the Sun Belt, the WAC, or long-shot CUSA, the Conference SoS puts us in a far better shot of making the tournament.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Your only proving my point of the fluidity of college basketball, schools large and small can shift quickly, in football it takes multiple classes to rebuild a program. This can basically relegate schools to a continual meaningless status, they become perpetual losers. I know this can happen in basketball as well, some schools always struggle but the potential for a meteoric rise is much greater.

NDSU went from a mediocre DII team to beating Wisconsin in one year, all because the basketball team added four players. Those players went on to win at top 10 Marquette the following year and in their senior year became one of favorite upset picks in the NCAA tournament. Bill Self said NDSU had the best point guard they had faced all year, NDSU had closed the gap considerably. Now it is large, but with another good class it can shrink considerably again.

Davidson did the same with Curry but they had an ever bigger rise going to the elite 8, losing to eventual champ Kansas by 2 points. The you have programs like WKU, George Mason, Wichita State, Wisconsin Milwaukee, Butler, etc who all made nice runs.




No it is not, the top teams in the smaller conferences can be very good, even though their conference as a whole aren't that great. The problem is that these teams get 12, 13, 14 and even 15 seeds despite building great records, the NCAA unfairly handicaps mid-majors every year because they don't have strong enough resumes. The fact is they never had a chance to build a resume, is Minnesota going to travel to NDSU, no. Not in a million years, NDSU or any good mid-major has to travel and travel to build a strong resume. Good luck winning multiple top 50 or top 100 road games, even great teams struggle on the road.




http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/tournament/bracket

Look at the final scores, sit here and tell me that these schools are clearly outclassed and belong in a different division.. I've never heard more BS in my life. I know they aren't winning, but they are hardly struggling like school that belong in different division would be.



I admire your passion on the topic and have enjoyed the discussion. But we seem to be at an impasse. At the end of the day, what matters is on-court success. And if you don't feel that the tournament holds any merit, then there is nothing else I can say. The numbers speak for themselves and it's been the BCS schools that have had success in winning championships. They've even had enough success in the rounds leading up to the Final game where 38 of those 40 schools who were at least within 2 wins of being champions, were BCS schools.

At the FCS level of football, teams like Montana and even App St. of late have proven that they can also compete against the top division of college football. And those 2 programs are tops in our FCS division. Montana has such a large attendance and strong program, yet still will participate at the same level of football as Presbyterian. But their program is not at the same level of say, USC.

In basketball, that would be the same...where perhaps a program like NDSU that has had a couple big wins over BCS schools and has a 3500 average attendance, would be top of I-AA and superior to say Northern Arizona, Sacramento St, Prairie View and others that struggle and average at or under 900 fans per game. Meanwhile, that doesn't mean that NDSU needs to be in the same "division" as any of the 100 programs that average over 3 times the attendance, spend 3 times the budget on basketball, and operate at a higher level than say NDSU. It doesn't mean NDSU and Ohio St. couldn't play each other, it would be no different than Umass scheduling Michigan this year in football, or a D2 basketball school scheduling a D1 opponent...like NDSU vs Minot St. this year.

I'll just leave this as a difference in opinion. To me, winning means contending across multiple games...not anomalies. And if only 1 team in 40 has performed at a high enough level to advance with 4 wins and get to the Final Four, it just isn't parity in my eyes. Which is why I can understand why Huggins and others feel there is so little parity. As one fan said to me "Texas and Marist just aren't on the same level".

[Evolution Prime]

If that happened, I honestly think that would kill the aura of the tournament. You kill the Cinderella teams and therefore kill the first round or two possibly up to the Sweet 16. Everyone knows that the larger schools like Kansas, Kentucky, Connecticut, Duke, etc are going to win every year. That isn't what makes the tournament so popular. Its the "little" guys like Valpo, UNI, Kent St, George Mason making some runs and upsets. There are actual teams in the lower conferences that can play, though their entire conference as a whole maybe can't. You eliminate them, you eliminate the greatness of the tournament.

I don't want to go see a #15 seed Iowa team play a #2 seed Duke team. The excitement just isn't there. You aren't pulling for Iowa because they really aren't the "little guy." They are still a Big Ten team. They really aren't an underdog in the sence. You get rid of the lower conferences, then you start filling the rest out with lower teams from power conferences. You could get a vast majority of you leage in. What is the point of conference tournaments then?

The lower class of league would wind up playing in the NIT type of tournament. It would largely go unnoticed and unheralded, kind of like the FCS playoffs. It would matter to only those in those conferences and division. You really think a fan of Kansas would give any respect to a fan of the winner of the NIT? You really think Alabama fans give respect to Villinova fans? Highly doubtful. This only creates a more of a sence of superiority to the power conferences.

This would also be about money, money, money. The power conferences don't want to share that. They will do anything they can to keep that money with them. They feel as the little guys are taking away from their money. The split would keep a lot more of that money with them.

Another issue would be where to draw the line. The MVC is FCS for football so would you drop them into this new classification? The MVC has quality teams like Creighton, UNI, and Drake. What about UMass, Villanova, Georgetown and the likes out on the east coast. They play quality basketball, but only do FCS football. Would you include them in the upper or lower division? There has to be a uniformly drawn line somewhere and my bet it would be where the line is drawin where the FCS football level is drawn at right now. That would leave teams contemplating their jump up to a higher level of football to compete in basketball or possibly drop football altogether. Even whole conferences moving up or formed would be a possibility.

So to summarize everything up, I hate this idea.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

CH, I think the instinct for all of us is to just visualize that "little guy" means "obscure program in small conference that plays in a gym". But there have been plenty of times when teams from BCS/FBS conferences have made runs as lower seeds and gotten similar accolades. Arizona winning the tournament as a 4 seed was a rarity. The other instances when 5-8 seeds made the Final Four were similar. I'm with you that it's not the same as watching Bucknell play a Kansas in the first round and upsetting them. But those tend to be single games. Rarely are the viewership numbers all that high for that game because there are 3 other games being played at the same time. But the later round games have everyones attention. And those games already tend to be BCS schools by the numbers.

At the same time, the best football schools like Florida, Ohio St, etc are participating at one level while Presby, Stonybrook, URI, Montana, etc are playing in another postseason division. Yet in basketball, that's not the case.

And you bring up a good point about some programs outside the bCS. And you're right. But many of these are programs that are clearly on another level from even members of their own conference. Some of these are BIG TIME programs and certainly nobody (including Huggins) would argue against them being included. We can include the MWc and CUSA with the BCs conferences as some of the schools like Memphis, New Mexico, BYU, UNLV, and Utah are all legit and Top 25 in the country in attendance. High attendance = more revenue put back into those programs.

And there are non-football schools that fall into that category as well. In the 2009 Top 50 attendance, you see some familiar names: Creighton, Dayton, Xavier, Wichita St, and even Bradley. The other 45 are FBS conferences. And there will always be those programs that transcend and I don't think anyone is arguing about eliminating those schools.

I think it's just about taking a step back and looking at it from this perspective:

Huggins isn't calling for the BCS conferences to leave the NCAA. He's talking about a system that would be like FBS and FCS. In FBS, there are 65 BCS conference schools and another 56 FBS schools, 121 total.

On the basketball side, the numbers would still be bigger than the FBS football schools. You'd likely see 30-40 of the top non-FBS schools in the mix each year too. But those would be the programs that have proven themselves at the highest level on all angles...not small programs that play in gyms while the others play in arenas...programs that are near the same level of the top basketball programs...like Montana and App St are on the football side.

[FargoBison]

Info you do realize the FCS was created in part because the schools that joined were willing to go there. Nobody is going to embrace what Huggins is talking about(besides some BCS schools and leagues), it is pretty much a death sentence for 200 DI basketball programs.

NDSU, Montana, App State, etc would probably move to leave the FCS. These schools don't want this, it would destroy their athletic departments because their current budgets would no longer be sustainable.

There will be lawsuits, and more trouble than the NCAA wants. Which is why if anything happens they will just expand the tournament, which will allow more BCS teams in(at that point every deserving team and then some would be in).

I won't even talk about parity, which I do believe is increasing, but we have discussed it. This whole solution is unworkable unless the BCS schools leave the NCAA, which would cause an uproar I doubt they would want to deal with.

The bottom line is that some schools can't compete, some because they don't even try, others because they just haven't had any luck. But that doesn't mean you should lump the schools like NDSU, SDSU, Montana, App State, and others that sit in the middle, support their programs, and try to their ****dest to compete in with the schools that don't even try and don't belong(I won't name names but I could).

I know, more passion from me, but I see where this is going and it isn't good for NDSU or mid-major basketball.

[centexguy]

The NCAA basketball tourney is setup to help the BCS teams and keep the non-BCS schools out. They already have an advantage in revenue and tv exposure, but for the BCS schools that's not enough. They want ALL the money and they'll do whatever it takes to keep the money.

The BCS schools will hardly travel to a non-BCS team's home court, so of course that helps their RPI. Then in the tourney they'll seed the teams based on RPI so the non-BCS teams either play the very good BCS teams or they'll pit the non-BCS teams against each other in the lower rounds so very few make it out of regionals.

Expanding the NCAA tourney is mainly about inviting more middle of the road BCS teams to the dance and making them more money at the expense of the non-BCS teams.

[Jackman]

These are still amateur sports. I don't understand why there are any divisions at all. If a university wants to voluntarily participate in a lower tier tournament, that's fine. But anyone willing to play by the rules should be eligible for consideration in the top tournament if that's what they want. What difference does it make how budgets compare or how competitive the games are? These are collegiate sports, conducted in the spirit of good athletic competition and sportsmanship. If universities want to operate sports businesses, then they should start paying their players. I'm tired of the hypocrisy. And if they don't feel that they're getting a large enough share of the money, then they should stop spending so much **** money on "amateur" sports and turning it into such an arms race/cesspool.

Honestly, what's next? Should we kick Malta out of the Olympics because they haven't won a medal in forever? Should we have the BCS Olympics, and a separate championship for the smaller nations where they award FCS medals? It's sport. You train, you compete, one side wins, and one side loses. Then you go back and train some more. That's the point of amateur sports, not political maneuverings to block access to tournaments and secure more exclusive television rights.

[FargoBison]

Butler and their $1.8 million basketball budget is in the final four. This tournament definitely has proven that parity is on the rise. Take that Huggy!

[daneboy]

I am another fan of the 1-AA basketball championship. If you took the best 64 teams in the NCAA tourney, you would probablly get to see the best basketball with the chance of the no. 16 beating the no. 1. This has not happened and, very few 15's have beaten no. 2. I think it would make for a more exciting basketball for March Madness.
And don't forget, there would be another tourney going on at the same time. It could follow the pattern of the 1-A and have 64 teams a s well. Certainly, this 1-AA tourney would not have the tv of the big one, but there would still be a more games for fans to attend and there would be more teams that would have a chance to win a national championship. How could this be bad?
Finally, and I have not really thought about it too much, but how about coming up with a formula where the worst conferance in the 1-A tourney from this year would be dropped down to the 1-AA for next year where the best in 1-AA will move up. This would reward those schools or leagues that are successful in improving their leagues while making the big boys stay good. It all just seems like the creation of the 1-AA basketball tourney is something that does deserve a good deal of thought. Of course, the problem is the NCAA and their incompetance-- so you can rest assured that what ever is done will be based the mighty dollar and political correctness. But that is anothe issue.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

So true daneboy. I didn't even think of that. A 16 has never beat a 1. But something tells me that that there would be even more parity.

If the last current at-large is a 12 seed, that means that the next 4 out are 13s, next 4 are 14s, next 4 are 15s and next 4 are 16s.

So a team like Dayton, which might have been the 10th team out this year, would be in as a 15. They are currently in the NIT final. Seems like if they were playing a #2 seed as a 15 seed, it would be a tighter point spread.

UNC was a 4 seed in the NIT...which would place them as a 16 seed in the NCAAs this year. UNC vs Kentucky in the first round provides a better chance for an upset than Kentucky vs ETSU.

[FargoBison]

I am another fan of the 1-AA basketball championship. If you took the best 64 teams in the NCAA tourney, you would probablly get to see the best basketball with the chance of the no. 16 beating the no. 1. This has not happened and, very few 15's have beaten no. 2. I think it would make for a more exciting basketball for March Madness.
And don't forget, there would be another tourney going on at the same time. It could follow the pattern of the 1-A and have 64 teams a s well. Certainly, this 1-AA tourney would not have the tv of the big one, but there would still be a more games for fans to attend and there would be more teams that would have a chance to win a national championship. How could this be bad?
Finally, and I have not really thought about it too much, but how about coming up with a formula where the worst conferance in the 1-A tourney from this year would be dropped down to the 1-AA for next year where the best in 1-AA will move up. This would reward those schools or leagues that are successful in improving their leagues while making the big boys stay good. It all just seems like the creation of the 1-AA basketball tourney is something that does deserve a good deal of thought. Of course, the problem is the NCAA and their incompetance-- so you can rest assured that what ever is done will be based the mighty dollar and political correctness. But that is anothe issue.

If those schools want to win a national title there is plenty of room for them in DII, DIII, and the NAIA.

What you are saying only rewards the power conference schools, it kills any midmajor condemned to IAA hell.

Info calling UNC beating Kentucky parity. xlolx

[seantaylor]

Idiotic. Butler would be D 1AA bball under this proposal. So would UNI and Cornell.

[proasu89]

So true daneboy. I didn't even think of that. A 16 has never beat a 1. But something tells me that that there would be even more parity.

If the last current at-large is a 12 seed, that means that the next 4 out are 13s, next 4 are 14s, next 4 are 15s and next 4 are 16s.

So a team like Dayton, which might have been the 10th team out this year, would be in as a 15. They are currently in the NIT final. Seems like if they were playing a #2 seed as a 15 seed, it would be a tighter point spread.

UNC was a 4 seed in the NIT...which would place them as a 16 seed in the NCAAs this year. UNC vs Kentucky in the first round provides a better chance for an upset than Kentucky vs ETSU.

You're using the two all-time winningest programs as an example of parityxlolx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

First of all, Butler has a better than even chance of winning the whole ****ed thing, putting a hole the size of a moving truck through the argument.

Second, one reason it will never work is the Big East breakup. If/when the Big East breaks up into football and non-football schools, conferences like the Big 10 will be falling over themselves to brand the Seton Hall/St. John's conference a "mid major" and relegate them to "I-AA basketball". With the history of the NCAA tourney with Georgetown/Villanova/etc, I think even the NCAA will have to say that's beyond the pale.

Third, all the power conferences schedule which teams they want wherever they want them. Most teams schedule schools they know are patsies, and know to avoid certain teams - Holy Cross had legendary issues scheduling Boston College and UConn since they were both terrified of losing to them and their special zone defense. And even when they do schedule them - at home, of course - there are close calls and upsets. Kansas barely squeaked by Cornell 71-66 during the regular season - a clear indicator that Cornell was a pretty ****ed good team. One of the years when Michigan State won the national championship, they lost to a Wright State team that didn't even have a winning record. Using "the big boys dominate regular season play" as an argument ignores these facts.

Making this argument in a year when St. Mary's upset Villanova, Northern Iowa upset Kansas, Cornell ran to the Sweet 16 and Butler has a true chance to be national champion is just comical.

[putter]

Why couldn't you take it year by year and go off of RPI/Sagarin's etc? Take the top 170 and up for the D1-A tourney and take the 171RPI and down elegible for the D1-AA tourney? Your top teams may be the same every year but your lower teams have the opportunity to improve their schedule and vie to get into that top 170 tier teams thus every year would be different - on the lower level. If they are looking to expand the tourney anyway it would be a way to let the individual programs decide where they will be by playing a tougher schedule and get their power ranking where it needs to be. You would have to account for regular season champs getting beat out in the tournament (like they do with the NIT) but that is another variable.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

[/SIZE]

You're using the two all-time winningest programs as an example of parityxlolx


I'm using an example of any team that DESERVES to be in a 96 team tournament based on their performance. A 16-15 A-sun team can win the conference tournament and steal a bid. But that doesn't mean that the 17-13 Kennesaw St. team should get an autobid. All that means is that 2 teams that are worse than Wichita St., VCU, SLU, Dayton, etc would have a chance of getting in.

Feel free to replace #16 ETSU with any of the top 7 A10 schools, top 2 Horizon, top 3 MVC, top 3 CAA...and the answer is the same: those schools all have a better shot as a 16 seed of beating a #1 seed...because they are successful programs this year with the talent level closer to Kentucky.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

First of all, Butler has a better than even chance of winning the whole ****ed thing, putting a hole the size of a moving truck through the argument.

Second, one reason it will never work is the Big East breakup. If/when the Big East breaks up into football and non-football schools, conferences like the Big 10 will be falling over themselves to brand the Seton Hall/St. John's conference a "mid major" and relegate them to "I-AA basketball". With the history of the NCAA tourney with Georgetown/Villanova/etc, I think even the NCAA will have to say that's beyond the pale.

Third, all the power conferences schedule which teams they want wherever they want them. Most teams schedule schools they know are patsies, and know to avoid certain teams - Holy Cross had legendary issues scheduling Boston College and UConn since they were both terrified of losing to them and their special zone defense. And even when they do schedule them - at home, of course - there are close calls and upsets. Kansas barely squeaked by Cornell 71-66 during the regular season - a clear indicator that Cornell was a pretty ****ed good team. One of the years when Michigan State won the national championship, they lost to a Wright State team that didn't even have a winning record. Using "the big boys dominate regular season play" as an argument ignores these facts.

Making this argument in a year when St. Mary's upset Villanova, Northern Iowa upset Kansas, Cornell ran to the Sweet 16 and Butler has a true chance to be national champion is just comical.


Again, that is an incorrect assumption. It's only in the minds of fans like you who think that the proposed split would be identical to that in FBS/FCS or BCS/FBS others football.

The programs you mentioned such as the Big East non-football schools, MVC and others are clearly above the fold. The proposed split is more to filter out the low conferences such as the MEAC, NEC, A-Sun, Big South, SWAC, southland etc...perhaps even the SoCon and Patriot. In other words, all the conferences that are always part of the current "play-in" game argument, or 15 to 16 seeds. It is clear that these conferences on average are on a much lower level than the other conferences. Does anyone think that Arkansas-Pine Bluff, which made the tournament, would be a favorite against the last place teams in the ACC, SEC, Big East, Big Ten, etc? ETSU is more on par with Fordham in the A10, but Fordham had a strong A10 conference that it had to play against.


This is all moot if the tournament is expanded. Instead, you'll see teams like URI, Dayton, Miss St, VA Tech in and it won't be at the expense of Lehigh. So if i were a fan of a low conference team, I'd be alright with the expansion...since it ensures that a split won't happen and i'd be left behind.