A college basketball super conference

[SWC75]

The Athletic had articles, in the wake of the European soccer proposal, what a college football and basketball super conference might look like. Here is the basketball article:
Who would be in a hoops Super League? Who's got next after Baylor? College basketball mailbag

Not everyone subscribes so these is their attempt to pick for a 32 or16 team super-conference of 'brand name' teams, which would play in a "Super Madness" tournament:

Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan State, Arizona, Villanova, Florida, Louisville, Gonzaga were taken from Ken Pom's Top 10. After that:

"… all of which looks fine, until you notice that program in Gainesville. Florida was good under Billy Donovan, winning consecutive national titles in 2006 and ’07. It has been mediocre since. Historically, culturally, do we really need Florida in this thing? Not so sure. See? It’s already getting messy.

UCLA and Indiana are no-brainers. And, yes, Indiana is absolutely the Arsenal of this competition, coasting on long historical coattails (earned over many decades, but still) without being good right now. (We have to find a decent analog for Tottenham, a team that hasn’t won its own league since 1961 and basically never wins anything but someone got a Super League call anyway.) Baylor has to be in, obviously. Syracuse and UConn, yes, sure, but what about Marquette and Notre Dame? What about Xavier? What about Butler? Hinkle Fieldhouse would end up nowhere close to this thing, would it? What about Alabama, which only just got interested in the sport and suddenly looks quite good at it? How are we judging this? Does sheer athletics budget/investment in the sport get you a spot? What about — gasp — Georgetown? Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, but what about Maryland? Iowa probably doesn’t get invited. Florida State? West Virginia? Memphis? Cincinnati? NC State fans would 100 percent think they deserved to be in it, even if they don’t. What about Texas? Would Texas even notice if it wasn’t asked?"

At that point they gave up on the notion.

The idea is that this conference would make more money than the current conference deals plus the March madness payoff combined and these schools would get to split it up and leave the rest of us behind. And that's the objection: that an inclusive tournament will have more fans than an exclusive one.

 

[SBU72]

I can't imagine a "Super " conference being limited to 16 teams. Limiting to 32 would be hard enough! If it is to be a true conference, I'd think you need that many to schedule games. Would anybody outside the conference want to play them? If it was just a super tournament, 16 or 32 works but again would schools not getting in that want to play them during the season

 

[Col. Bleep]

And not even a mention of Virginia?
A team that should be a lock.

 

[Sherman20]

And not even a mention of Virginia?
A team that should be a lock.

Virginia? Really? They have a good coach and have had a nice streak of winning seasons. They haven’t proven themselves as a program over the long haul. Neither has Baylor. This is a dumb idea anyways.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

It wouldn't make sense to have a super conference. All you would be doing is limiting the amount of teams that make the NCAAT and in return see minimal extra revenue in TV $. So you would need a Super division that broke away from the NCAA.

If you want a true round robin then you are looking at 20 teams max. You won't be able to fit in more than 38 games between November and March, and that is with a one week one location end of year conference like tournament. With a prolonged multi location tournament you need to drop to 18 or less teams.

Or you can have a large group of these teams that plays everyone once and teams in their region twice. That will allow you to maximize brands, fanbases, TV markets. It would also limit travel. The problem here is the West. There aren't a lot of worthy teams.

30 Teams
5 regions of 6 teams each

West
UCLA, Zona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
I didn't pick Gonzaga because Few won't live forever, and a state school makes more sense as a choice. UNLV might be a better choice than Colorado.

Midwest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Mizzou, Iowa

South
UNC, Duke, UVA, Louisville, Kentucky, Florida

Great Lakes
Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana, Illinois

Northeast
Cuse, Nova, UConn, Maryland, West Virginia, Notre Dame
Pitt over WV is a possibility.

18 teams
UVA, UNC, Duke, Louisville, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas, Texas, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio State,
Wisconsin, Michigan State, UCLA, Zona, UConn, Nova, Cuse

 

[GooseMutt]

No. I want parity. I’m sick of elite privileges. I want college basketball to be just that. Kids going to school playing sports. It is evolving into something not fun anymore.

 

[mscanlo]

eh, I think the European soccer fans were ultimately right. Yes, ultimately a lot of fans want fewer, but more high quality matches, but even more important, the league/competition needs to be open to everyone. It will be boring to see the same 16 or 20 teams play each other. In addition, the David vs Goliath stories of the NCAA tournament are what makes the basketball tournament great (and to some extent, what the college football playoffs is lacking)

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

8 10-team conferences. In FB - Conference Winners into the playoff bowls.

Basketball -

Then do a POD like the World Cup for the tournament (1 vs 8 2 vs 7 3 vs 6 4 vs 5) best 2 of 3 advances - get it down to 32 teams (4 in each league) , then single elimination.

 

[djcon57]

eh, I think the European soccer fans were ultimately right. Yes, ultimately a lot of fans want fewer, but more high quality matches, but even more important, the league/competition needs to be open to everyone. It will be boring to see the same 16 or 20 teams play each other. In addition, the David vs Goliath stories of the NCAA tournament are what makes the basketball tournament great (and to some extent, what the college football playoffs is lacking)

While I personally don’t disagree with that thought process, dynasties and powerhouse programs are what drive eyes and ratings not david vs Goliaths in nearly every sport

 

[mscanlo]

While I personally don’t disagree with that thought process, dynasties and powerhouse programs are what drive eyes and ratings not david vs Goliaths in nearly every sport

Maybe not for the regular season, but I think most people find the first round (and second) the most exciting because of the opportunity that David can take down Goliath

 

[OrangeTarheel]

My Super League would be a tournament involving all 350 D1 college basketball teams in the country in which all matchups are determined by random selection each round. Day one of the tournament would be madness with 175 games. Lots of blowouts. A few major upsets. And an uneven number of teams for the next round. This problem of odd numbers of teams gets worse as you get closer to two final teams.

The best solution I can conceive is to allow random selection to occur until all pairings are made - the additional, unpaired, team moves to the next round and is added back to the pool. There, now after day one we have 174 teams to pair and one unpaired and waiting for the next rounds selection.

Day two yields 87 victors. After day three we have 43, after day four we have 22 and day five yields 11, day six has 5 (the final five!).

This is leading toward what some will consider an unsatisfying conclusion wherein four of the final five teams play and yield two winners. But there are three teams remaining because one wasn’t matched/paired. So two of the three teams are randomly selected for a match. The winner of that game is paired in the championship match with the team that sat out unpaired.

Every team makes the tournament regardless of record. This type of tournament might be a great way to open every season. Scheduling would be a mess but if tournament games were held every other day for the first few rounds we could ensure minimal impact to the scheduling of most all participants.

 

[SWC75]

My Super League would be a tournament involving all 350 D1 college basketball teams in the country in which all matchups are determined by random selection each round. Day one of the tournament would be madness with 175 games. Lots of blowouts. A few major upsets. And an uneven number of teams for the next round. This problem of odd numbers of teams gets worse as you get closer to two final teams.

The best solution I can conceive is to allow random selection to occur until all pairings are made - the additional, unpaired, team moves to the next round and is added back to the pool. There, now after day one we have 174 teams to pair and one unpaired and waiting for the next rounds selection.

Day two yields 87 victors. After day three we have 43, after day four we have 22 and day five yields 11, day six has 5 (the final five!).

This is leading toward what some will consider an unsatisfying conclusion wherein four of the final five teams play and yield two winners. But there are three teams remaining because one wasn’t matched/paired. So two of the three teams are randomly selected for a match. The winner of that game is paired in the championship match with the team that sat out unpaired.

Every team makes the tournament regardless of record. This type of tournament might be a great way to open every season. Scheduling would be a mess but if tournament games were held every other day for the first few rounds we could ensure minimal impact to the scheduling of most all participants.

I hate the selection process and would rather see this, (with the teams seeded rather than opponents chosen at random). It would require only three extra rounds to get down to 64 teams. But that was discussed at length in another thread.

Is there a better way of doing this?

I’m always thinking outside the box, (us blockheads have to), and I’m always being told “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But even things that aren’t broken could be redesigned to function better. I can’t help imagining alternative formats for the NCAA tournament so here goes. 1) The purpose...

syracusefan.com

 

[djcon57]

Maybe not for the regular season, but I think most people find the first round (and second) the most exciting because of the opportunity that David can take down Goliath

i agree, but david ‘s second round and further games are usually bombs ratings wise. In general, People want Kentucky vs Duke

 

[ORANGE OATH]

No. I want parity. I’m sick of elite privileges. I want college basketball to be just that. Kids going to school playing sports. It is evolving into something not fun anymore.

I hear you, the money in professional sports and TV Rights has really taken over to a large degree what college sports was supposed to be, young men playing a school sport for their own enjoyment and pride in their University or College.
If a young man can make millions of dollars playing basketball, God Bless him, but in the process I hope this alchemy doesn’t continue to destroy the College Game.
I understand things change and time passes, but not all change is good.
I just hope College BB will always have that special attachment for those of us that love watching this wonderful game. I am hoping the money doesn’t continue to morph the sport into something we further don’t recognize, or choose not to recognize.

 

[Madbiker]

I hate the selection process and would rather see this, (with the teams seeded rather than opponents chosen at random). It would require only three extra rounds to get down to 64 teams. But that was discussed at length in another thread.

Is there a better way of doing this?

I’m always thinking outside the box, (us blockheads have to), and I’m always being told “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But even things that aren’t broken could be redesigned to function better. I can’t help imagining alternative formats for the NCAA tournament so here goes. 1) The purpose...

syracusefan.com

If every team gets in there's no point in a regular season. Besides, what would likely happen is the top 50 teams would get byes for maybe multiple rounds (nobody wants to see top seed blow out #350, etc.). IMO this concept would have a better chance if done in football since it's the same dozen teams that really compete for the championship every year.

 

[SWC75]

If every team gets in there's no point in a regular season. Besides, what would likely happen is the top 50 teams would get byes for maybe multiple rounds (nobody wants to see top seed blow out #350, etc.). IMO this concept would have a better chance if done in football since it's the same dozen teams that really compete for the championship every year.

The regular season existed long before there was a post season and has it's own validity. You want to beat your rivals and win your conference. You also establish the seedings fo the 350 team tournament. Besides a 350 tournament would last from from 1-9 games for an individual team. How does that replace the regular season?

 

[cuseincincy]

Pass.

 

[Alsacs]

One of my old posts. This would add a second competition during every season besides March madness NC.

I really wish College hoops added a Champions League style competition during the season to make it more relevant than just March.

If the NCAA said the Champions League games would be exempt each year and the conferences got the TV money from whomever bought the rights to the NCAA basketball Champions League then it could work. There are 32 conferences you give each conference 1 bid and then the more successful conferences would get more of the 32 other slots like the UEFA Champions League which cap 4 slots for the best league La Liga, BPL, Bundesliga.
So you would get 32 teams, then each of these conferences would get an additional ACC-3 B1G-3, PAC-3, Big XII-3, MWC-1, SEC-3, AAC-2, A-10-2, Big East-3, Missouri Valley-1, and give out the remaining 7 slots to the lower conferences.

You draw the 64 teams into 16 regions. You seed them 1-64 regardless of conferences and keep the top 16 apart. Play the 3 teams you are drawn into home/home. The group winner goes on, tiebreakers are head to head/if that doesn't decide the higher seed advances.

From there you get the 16 remaining teams and draw matchups. If you want 32 teams runner ups as well.
You give group winners home court and after that it’s just random so a midmajor could host Final 8 games as well.

Again, these games would have to be sprinkled in during the regular season from November till before March and the conference tournaments. It would affect 64 of the 320+ NCAA teams each year, but it would generate a crapload of money and would get fun matchups. The winning team would play 9 additional games during the season, and participating teams would play only a minimum of 6 more games under my format.

Conference play would matter a lot more as you would be playing to finish in champions league spots. Losing a game in January would have a double effect it could be the difference between future champions league appearance and would reward teams that are consistent in conference play.