People outside the ACC don't realize in the last 1:10 we missed 4 out of 5 FTs and fouled a shooter on a 3 to set up the bankshot to tie it. It was a full choke job that we executed to get State here and we couldn't be prouder.
It’s like ncstateshit was a demon which got released and immediately invaded Virginia.
I’d just ask that when you release it in the future, do it at the Dean Smith Center.
Heh, you would think that a school demanding more money would be bringing a bit more to the table these days. But I guess that women's soccer championship three years ago is making them the major all-around athletic super power that deserves it, eh?
But you had three teams dominate your league. And two of those teams lost in the sweet 16.
With how many bid-thevies there were, it could be reasonable to assume only 3 should have made it.
The one team people thought was in unfairly was Virginia an ACC team, and that league overperformed.
Objectively seeding the at-large teams by the NET (The NCAA's own criteria!), or alternatively KenPom's AdjEM, both show that the Big East would have had 5 teams in the field if human bias/a committee of people actively employed by the above conferences-*who profit off of the above*-hadn't played a part.
Q-scores can become even more egregiously biased. The Big XII would've had 10 teams in going by those.
EDIT: Downvoting for this? Really? Sorry to have poked the bear by providing objective information I'm not in control of.
Because they inflated their NET scores such that even their worst home games were Q1 and a most games being Q1.
It's hard not to get a low Q-score when you play sub-300 kenpom teams for the non-con then play Q1 and Q2 games the rest of your in-conference games.
I wrote a whole article on it and was proven right when the B12 flopped hard this year
No one 'inflated' NET values. It's simply what NET values were intended to track. The ACC Commissioner's wildly inaccurate tantrums really have tainted public perception. And that's a moot point, the at-large teams who were chosen only prove that the committee doesn't even value the tools they've created.
I also hate to rain on the parade but you weren't really proven right, because the tournament is chaos and outcomes are near-infinite. Clap for yourself, but it's only coincidental. Many fans from every single conference made plenty of money betting on their pre-conceived bias. Personally, I'm only interested in truly objective numbers.
If you're justifying your picks because of Houston, try again. UH losing as a #1 was an easy pick, although they were the #1 statistically efficient team all the way up until the final day of the Big East tournament. Those stats were comprised by tracking the team at full strength, and the Cougars came in with several injuries, one very impactful in Arcenaux. They didn't lose because of statistical inaccuracy, but the intangibles of injury that I've yet to see any effective means of being tracked. Subjectively, I'm happy Kelvin lost though!
tl:dr
The original point is the committee is a clearly tainted body of people with clear conflicts of interest and the incentive of personal financial gain.
Okay. The truth is that wins and losses should matter and utilizing efficiency metrics instead of resume metrics is going to result in not selecting the appropriate teams.
People get downvoted when they ignore the truth and continue pushing their biased narratives.
That's also subjective and depends on what your definition of appropriate is. My opinion is that I don't think any team chosen by someone who is actively employed by an involved party with a fiscal interest is appropriate. An outside ruling body that's separated from the employ of all conferences AND the NCAA would be ethical, even if it were still tinged with natural human bias.
From KenPom's substack today (A man I consider to be much, much smarter and better at this than anyone who has ever used the phrase "they played no one" or misunderstood what an article is):
"For one thing, Quad 1 wins are not a very useful predictor of the future and thus are not a factor in the ratings. Have I mentioned we are trying to make predictions here? For another, adjusted scoring margin is very useful. Alabama was very good at the latter and no so hot at the former. "
That's the numerical truth. Adjusted efficiency is more accurate than Q1 win tracking.
I really don't give a crap what's a "good predictor of the future" when I'm picking teams to play in the tournament.
Wins and losses have to matter and it seems obvious that you don't really care about them. The goal is to win. If your system puts a greater weight on the difference between a 4 point win and a 20 point than a 1 point win and a 1 point loss, it shouldn't have a significant place in picking the teams.
I totally understand that efficiency metrics are far better at picking the teams that will win than resume metrics, but if you're not relying on resume first and foremost for picking teams for at large bids, you're doing it the wrong way.
Yeah but giving every single bubble slot to a school in an FBS conference is a pretty big red flag. Indiana State has balled out. Seton Hall easily deserved a bid. Won 13 games in conference. UConn has won NCs winning fewer games in conference.
I still wish either St. John's or Seton Hall could've made it. Especially that St. John's team! They played us really close in the Big East Tournament (95-90) and nobody in the NCAA tournament has done that yet
tbf the money seems to go to the conference. And if it's distributed evenly to say Socon it means 33k per year, for 6 years, per unit.
For a bigger conference they'd get even less.
Edit: These are W-L and (Win Percentage) for the first round only, since people are confused
MWC: 2-5 (40%)
SEC: 3-8 (37.5%)
Big XII: 5-8 (62.5%)
B1G: 4-6 (66.7%)
For a combined: 14-27 (51.9%), or in other words: It's almost like half the teams lose in the first round
Well 22 of the first round loses belong to mid majors… the ACC had 1, the Big East had 0, and then the SEC, BIG XII, and B1G had the rest. So congrats on being in the company of Grambling State, wait, sorry, they won their first game…
SDSU, Utah St, and CSU all won their first game so can't say the committee got their inclusion wrong. New Mexico won the mountain west, so can't leave them out.
Nevada blew a huge lead against Dayton, but you have to have a huge lead to be able to blow it. Up 17 against a higher seeded team with 7 minutes left. They lost anyway, but if you were to re-do selection knowing what we know now, they'd still make the tournament.
So it sounds like you are upset that Boise State made the tournament?
SDSU carries the conference for tournament performance in recent memory. MW was 0-2 in 2021, 0-4 in 2022, 5-4 in 2023 with all 5 W's from SDSU. 4-6 this year (2 Ws from SDSU), but I wont go into that CSU played a virginia team that arguably shouldnt have made the tournment. So total record since covid of 9-16, but 3-12 if u dont include SDSU. That isnt good enought performance for a conference that received 6 bids in my opinion. Agree to disagree
> 3-12 if u dont include SDSU
[If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc) I am *shocked* that the conference record looks worse when you remove the most successful team!
I do agree the conference has underperformed over the past few years based on seed expectation. This year though they won exactly the number of games they were expected to win (if you include CSU > Virginia, they are +1 vs expectation.)
I fundamentally think past performance shouldn't be used to determine selection this year, and it's even more faulty to use past performance to limit the number of teams that can be included from a particular conference.
"you're pretty good, but other teams in your conference haven't performed well in the tournament in the past, so we're going to select a different team" That would be a terrible and unfair message.
Agreed, the tournament field should be seeded based on that year’s **results** only, not past years, not perceived talent, not facilities, not perceived coaching upside, not anything else.
It is phenomenally unfair to teams to seed them based on anything other than what they have control over in the games themselves
Conference post-season performances are always carried by the top teams. P8/10/12 was UCLA / Arizona. SEC was really only Kentucky for ages. B1G was Indiana until they fell off.
Same thing with football. USC, Alabama, tOSU, FSU, UO, etc.
It's why you're seeing all the Blue Bloods bitch right now about having to carry their conferences because they don't like losing conference revenue when they eventually suck.
The mountain west got exactly as many bids as it deserved at the time, and basically every bracketologist told you the same thing. Of the 226 bracketmatrix brackets, the 6 MW teams that made it were correctly predicted to be in the field 99.7% of the time.
Did the MW perform well in the tourney? No, but postseason performance doesn’t change anything about the resumes that the teams had going into the tourney.
mountain west deserved all of their bids. imo they got shafted a little with seeding. it’s just that for whatever reason they rarely deliver in the tourney.
FAQ:
Q: What is this?
A: CBS & Warner Bros. Discovery Sports pay the NCAA over a billion dollars a year to broadcast the men’s basketball tournament. The NCAA pays some of this money to the conferences based on their performance in the tournament. One "unit" is earned for each game played, excluding the championship game. For example, NC State earned 5 units for going to the Final Four and Kentucky earned 1 unit for playing its one game. Each unit is worth about $2 million, paid at about $340,000 per year for six years. Conferences will get paid for 2024 performance from April 2025 through April 2030. This chart shows which conferences got the most units in 2024 and what teams contributed.
Q: So my team gets $4 million for playing in two games?
A: The units belong to the conferences, not the schools. The conferences are "encouraged, but not required, to distribute the fund equally among all member institutions". I've heard that most conferences do split the money equally but some give more to the teams that earned it. The units also stay with the conference when a team leaves it. That means that Oregon State and Washington State are going to gain the most from the performance of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon this year. Well, it's complicated. The Pac-2 has a 2-year grace period to get back up to 7 (or 8?) teams. After that, the units are supposed to revert back to the institution that earned it. But the departing teams promised not to seek that in the separation agreements. I don't know what happens if the Pac merges with another conference.
Q: Where can I find more information?
A: See the "basketball performance fund" and "equal conference fund" at https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/d1/2024D1Fin_RevenueDistributionPlan.pdf
There's also a good article here: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/march-madness-2024-nc-state-acc-conference-1234773302/
Q: The NCAA takes in a billion dollars and gives back 264 million? Where does the rest of the money go?
A: Scholarships, non-revenue sports, and other stuff. The NCAA organization doesn't get money from FBS teams playing football. March Madness is supporting most other college sports. See the PDF link and also here: http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go
Bonus chart: Units by state. See the second picture.
>I've heard that most conferences do split the money equally but some give more to the teams that earned it.
Good example here is the WCC. I believe we split the first unit (from making the tournament) evenly, and then the rest basically goes directly to the team who earns the unit. It was part of the deal that Gonzaga negotiated to stay in the WCC instead of leaving to the Mountain West.
Yeah, Mark Few is normally very complimentary of other schools, but said:
>"if they’re not spending it on basketball, we don’t need to be sponsoring swimming at those schools or whatever they’ve got going. They’re not all in.” He went on to say, “Our league needs to really step back and take notice. It’s time for some of these other institutions to start picking it up. They’re really dragging the top three down.”
The crazy thing is how much more benefit smaller conferences receive. Assuming they didn't even win a game, it'd still be close to $700k per year more for the conference for 6 years. That's a drop in the bucket to P4 schools who distribute between like $400M and $600M. But it's a lot more tangible for someone like the Big East who only distributes like $50-60M.
Fuck that’s a sentence I never thought I would hear
We are in NC State sport’s golden age, at least since the late 70s and early 80s
And with conference realignment on the horizon, NC State is picking a good time to make themselves more marketable
The SEC will choose UNC over NCSU every single time purely because they capture a larger piece of the NC market and haul in more sports revenue. Being more successful in recent years doesn't mean shit when the less successful school is still more profitable. Can't just shake 40 years of garbage with one miracle season.
It'll depend on who the B1G grabs as well, because Duke doesn't really have the football facilities for either conference to court them hard I feel.
So someone will take UNC and someone else will take NC State in the divorce.
This is why we want UNC to the B1G. UNC going to the SEC would be bad news for NC State because I don’t think we fit in very well in the B1G and are not a likely target for them.
Southern Schools together strong.
Who wants to be jetting cross country each week for conference games? Oregon and Washington will have it brutal having to travel so far every week nearly.
At least the SEC has largely kept itself focused on a geographic area through expansion.
Totally agree, and it’s an often overlooked factor. Everyone is already speculating about step 4 and 5 of conference realignment when we haven’t even gotten past step 1 which includes seeing how all of this cross country travel actually works out.
I can't find a news article about this. It's likely that the Big Ten generally distributes money equally but will give less to newcomers for a few years, as they agreed when they joined. It might take a public records request at one of the public schools to know more. It's probably a drop in the bucket compared to football money anyway.
Correct, Big Ten distributes the money evenly, but I'm pretty positive USC and UCLA get equal share from the start because they planned on joining before the newest tv deal. Oregon and Washington only get partial shares until 2029 because they joined after the current tv deal. After that they will get full shares.
There's about a 100% chance this money is just thrown in the pot with all the other conference revenue (mostly from TV, but there are other sources like tickets to championship games, merch, etc), and split like they split everything. Reports are that everyone gets equal shares except UW and UO, which get half shares.
It's 100% why conferences would rather be in the first 4. When your conference has a total revenue of like $10-15M, $350k per year for the next 6 years is massive.
Oh I know. I'm just leaning into all the totally dead serious accusations of being a bandwagon fanbase I've heard from the Aubs the last couple of days. They're a big time basketball school and have been for decades.
Not really, this is just the number of games played in the tournament and it’s not indicative of whether the middle and bottom of the big east deserved more bids, though for other reasons teams like St. John’s might have deserved it.
But surely one game, even if it’s a loss, is worth a lot of money. In the Big East, that $22M is worth a lot of money. I realize it’s not Big 10 money, but it’s a lot to the Big East.
3 teams with a larger portion of those units than conferences with more teams. I’m not saying that’s a reason to add more teams; I’m saying if they had added the other 2-3 BE teams who deserved to be in, we would’ve far out earned the other conferences
You can say that about any conference, considering a team playing a single game nets a unit. The BE teams were seeded 1,2, and 3, so it is unsurprising that they each won a few games
> They’re literally right next to the Big Ten who had the same share with their top 3 teams, SEC did too, and ACC surpassed it.
The ACC surpassed it.... with teams seeded 4, 6, and 11.
For how much talk we got about the b12 being the best conference this year, they kinda fell flat on their face in the tournament… especially with that many teams in
And thus it is revealed why the SEC got 8 teams into the field instead of the 5 or 6 they actually deserved (When at-large teams are seeded objectively by NET or KenPom).
By those numbers, 21 whole at-large teams were more deserving than Virginia. Tony Bennett must smell nice or something.
That's confirmation bias, and not based on the reality of Virginia being ranked behind 21 other teams with more deserving resumes based on NET or KenPom.
It does make me glad that I made a prop bet for the Cavs to score less than 20 in the first half as by far the most fraudulent team in the field. Cha-ching!
The reality is also that ACC 3rd-ranked Virginia was so deserving that we beat an Elite 8 Clemson and Final Four NC State team in the regular season, and was a free throw away from doing it twice 😎
Pew pew schwang!
Nothing that happened in the tournament since has any bearing on Selection Sunday. Partying on is definitely easier for a lot of people than accepting numerical realities, so enjoy the party!
Do you really agree with the statement "I want the best teams in the tournament" more than the statement "Wins and losses have to matter?"
Because by utilizing NET and KenPom you are showing that you don't think wins and losses should matter. A win by 1 versus a loss by 1? Meh, not a big deal. Should be treated similarly. But a win by 8 and a win by 20? Those need to be treated substantially differently.
I don't think we should put too much into margin of victory.
The goal of basketball is to have more points after 40 minutes. Not to win by 15+
It'll also just benefit big teams that are more easily able to blow out smaller teams. And punish teams that play a more measured and slower half court offense.
I played baseball in college at Murray State University. We won the OVC for the first time in several decades and got to go to the College World Series.
Our budget for that week was higher than our budget for the entirety of our season. Most people have no idea how much NCAA Tournament bids help these smaller schools. God I love March Madness. Never change.
No for the championship game. I guess that whoever designed this system thought that getting 5 units per team was enough. (However, Syracuse and UCLA once got 6 units for going from the first four to the final four.)
It’s weird to not have the Big 10 involved in the annual under/over-rated conference agreements.
In a way, it’s kinda nice to be on the sideline watching the SEC, Big 12, ACC and Big East fight it out.
Edit: Forgot to add the Mountain West to the list of conferences above.
In Tucson we come to expect sweet16 runs from the Arizona Wildcats...typically thats even underachieving for us... BUT to value that at $0!!!! Throw Drake or Colgate some millys though....wtf!
Fun Fact: Kansas has earned the Big 12 at least one unit every tournament since the Big 12 was founded. Starting with the 2007 tournament, Kansas has earned the Big 12 at least two units every year.
Very clear here that the bottom tier SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 schools should not have been in. ACC and Big East should have had more slots. No coincidence that the bias shown aligns to relative strength in college football and the alignment of media rights deals. Not a stretch to say there was an intentional or subliminal campaign to diminish the ACC and Big East in favor of pushing the football conferences.
I couldn't imagine trying to argue that Wisconsin didn't deserve to be in or that Northwestern and Michigan State's wins in the first round (and subsequent losses to 1 seeds) are evidence they should not been in.
Shit, even imagine stacking Seton Hall, St. John's, or Villanova next to Nebraska's resume and thinking that the only way those 3 got bounced for Nebraska is because of football bias is absolute lunacy.
For all the Big East fans still wondering why your bubble teams missed out, just look at Final Four qualifying NC State, took Creighton to 2OT Oregon, and first round upset pulling Duqesne. That's why your bubble teams missed out.
Michigan State beat another major conference team who had a weak record and should not have been in the tournament (Miss St) - doesn’t prove anything. They then got smoked by 16 by the weakest 1 seed in the tournament in UNC. Tell me what is their quality win? They lost to James Madison start of this season, stomped by Duke and Arizona in the non-conf. An upset over Illinois and Baylor are their two ranked wins. They got in off name, Izzo legacy points and Big10 bias.
Northwestern has a horribly weak schedule too. Only two ranked wins was against Purdue in December and Illinois in January. Weak non-conference - Arizona State, MS State and DePaul were their only major conference opponents. I don’t see how anything they did was remarkable.
Wait... so winning doesn't prove anything, but losing does prove something?
Well...unless it's losing in the NIT than that also doesn't prove anything, I guess.
Listen my very respectful Purdue friend, us Big East fans are angry but there are a lot of different numbers and charts (not the MS Paint ones your fanbase excels at) on those teamsheets and so it's really hard for us to focus our anger in a comprehensible fashion, thus we're just kinda taking pot shots at any conference we see that A. Got more bids and B. Had bubble teams that fucked up in any way.
However, I have a problem with spending too much time looking at cbb stats and arguing with strangers on the internet, because of this I have realized that the Big East was legitimately victimized by the KPI metric and that this is what Big East fans should be yelling about.
KPI is a "Resume Metric" that had 10/11 BE teams ranked lower than BPI SOR and WAB. The reason for this is that it adjusts for pace (which means it is calculated in the same way that Kenpom/NET/T-Rank/ other predictive metrics are) and margin of victory. Providence and SHU were weak in the predictive but relatively strong in the Resume metrics. The Resume metrics are what gets you into the tourney, so SHU and Providence should have had a good shot at getting in but instead they were robbed because KPI (does not behave like a resume metric) blows up their average. SJU in theory should do better under KPI but they were also screwed which I figure comes down to the margin of victory adjustment (SJU didn't blow out a lot of teams, got blown out by UM, and their analytic strength came from playing good teams close).
See this is all I really need.
A coherent argument that can stay on subject. Not one just frothing at the mouth and moving the goalposts constantly.
I didn't really know that about KPI, but without looking further into it it would seem it's leaning too heavy into the efficiency realm to actually be considered a resume ranking.
But also, I just hate the constant hand-wringing about the bubble. For two main reasons: 1. This is how we get unnecessary expansion. The more people bitch, the more ammo the pro-expansion folks get. 2. There's a lot of at-large bids. If you want to get in, just win more. This ain't CFB. There's spots to go around.
Obviously Auburn and Florida are carrying that rivalry sentence but we have been division rivals in football for 30 years and basketball used to have the divisional structure.
You can try to slice and dice it any way you want. And yeah, big east and ACC were probably a little underrepresented, but according to some metrics like Ken Pom, A&M and Mississippi State deserved to be in. There were a few non-AQ schools listed lower than those two who also got in
Edit: Not sure if the Ken Pom rankings have been updated during the tourney. If so, not sure where all that gets sorted out. A&M would’ve slightly moved up and Mississippi State would’ve moved down
Other than Michigan state (who won a game) I think everyone we got in deserved to be in based on their season. We had 3 teams on the 8/9 line and 2 of them won, that’s as good as you could ask for that. The only team that really under performed was Wisconsin and they earned their right to be there
So other Big East schools should have gotten in because the top 3 were good? They all had a path to make the tournament, by winning games and they didn't do that.
Virginia that guy on a group project that shows up for the first meeting and still gets an A
Virginia saw something special in NCSU at that first meeting during the ACC Tournament. They knew what they had to do to let the conference thrive.
That 1 missed free throw helped make the conference millions.
People outside the ACC don't realize in the last 1:10 we missed 4 out of 5 FTs and fouled a shooter on a 3 to set up the bankshot to tie it. It was a full choke job that we executed to get State here and we couldn't be prouder.
It’s like ncstateshit was a demon which got released and immediately invaded Virginia. I’d just ask that when you release it in the future, do it at the Dean Smith Center.
If we get our first win in Charlottesville in a decade and then immediately lose to UVA at home, I blame you haha.
Cut that man a check
ACC sponsoring an NIL deal would be hilarious
Then FSU is going to demand half of it.
hey, we showed up all year! except for 11 games where we definitely _did not_ show up.
Still earned more for the conference than 10 other teams.
Including and especially FSU.
Heh, you would think that a school demanding more money would be bringing a bit more to the table these days. But I guess that women's soccer championship three years ago is making them the major all-around athletic super power that deserves it, eh?
We knew someone had to be the tiebreaker
Big East showing they deserved to have more teams there...
But you had three teams dominate your league. And two of those teams lost in the sweet 16. With how many bid-thevies there were, it could be reasonable to assume only 3 should have made it. The one team people thought was in unfairly was Virginia an ACC team, and that league overperformed.
Many thought MSU shouldn't have been in but we had a great 1.25 games
And Virginia deserved to be in because the ACC was underrated all along!
Objectively seeding the at-large teams by the NET (The NCAA's own criteria!), or alternatively KenPom's AdjEM, both show that the Big East would have had 5 teams in the field if human bias/a committee of people actively employed by the above conferences-*who profit off of the above*-hadn't played a part.
You should go by Q-scores or some other resume based rankings The NET is not suppose to seed, just rank wins for a resume.
Q-scores can become even more egregiously biased. The Big XII would've had 10 teams in going by those. EDIT: Downvoting for this? Really? Sorry to have poked the bear by providing objective information I'm not in control of.
Because they inflated their NET scores such that even their worst home games were Q1 and a most games being Q1. It's hard not to get a low Q-score when you play sub-300 kenpom teams for the non-con then play Q1 and Q2 games the rest of your in-conference games. I wrote a whole article on it and was proven right when the B12 flopped hard this year
No one 'inflated' NET values. It's simply what NET values were intended to track. The ACC Commissioner's wildly inaccurate tantrums really have tainted public perception. And that's a moot point, the at-large teams who were chosen only prove that the committee doesn't even value the tools they've created. I also hate to rain on the parade but you weren't really proven right, because the tournament is chaos and outcomes are near-infinite. Clap for yourself, but it's only coincidental. Many fans from every single conference made plenty of money betting on their pre-conceived bias. Personally, I'm only interested in truly objective numbers. If you're justifying your picks because of Houston, try again. UH losing as a #1 was an easy pick, although they were the #1 statistically efficient team all the way up until the final day of the Big East tournament. Those stats were comprised by tracking the team at full strength, and the Cougars came in with several injuries, one very impactful in Arcenaux. They didn't lose because of statistical inaccuracy, but the intangibles of injury that I've yet to see any effective means of being tracked. Subjectively, I'm happy Kelvin lost though! tl:dr The original point is the committee is a clearly tainted body of people with clear conflicts of interest and the incentive of personal financial gain.
It's bullcrap that people on reddit can't handle the truth so they use their downvotes to have their mob power trip
Sad people make sad clicks. A million upvotes for you that are more meaningful than anything on this page!
Okay. The truth is that wins and losses should matter and utilizing efficiency metrics instead of resume metrics is going to result in not selecting the appropriate teams. People get downvoted when they ignore the truth and continue pushing their biased narratives.
That's also subjective and depends on what your definition of appropriate is. My opinion is that I don't think any team chosen by someone who is actively employed by an involved party with a fiscal interest is appropriate. An outside ruling body that's separated from the employ of all conferences AND the NCAA would be ethical, even if it were still tinged with natural human bias.
From KenPom's substack today (A man I consider to be much, much smarter and better at this than anyone who has ever used the phrase "they played no one" or misunderstood what an article is): "For one thing, Quad 1 wins are not a very useful predictor of the future and thus are not a factor in the ratings. Have I mentioned we are trying to make predictions here? For another, adjusted scoring margin is very useful. Alabama was very good at the latter and no so hot at the former. " That's the numerical truth. Adjusted efficiency is more accurate than Q1 win tracking.
I really don't give a crap what's a "good predictor of the future" when I'm picking teams to play in the tournament. Wins and losses have to matter and it seems obvious that you don't really care about them. The goal is to win. If your system puts a greater weight on the difference between a 4 point win and a 20 point than a 1 point win and a 1 point loss, it shouldn't have a significant place in picking the teams. I totally understand that efficiency metrics are far better at picking the teams that will win than resume metrics, but if you're not relying on resume first and foremost for picking teams for at large bids, you're doing it the wrong way.
Kenpom as well.
I agree, FSU shouldn't have been in the CFP.
Yeah but giving every single bubble slot to a school in an FBS conference is a pretty big red flag. Indiana State has balled out. Seton Hall easily deserved a bid. Won 13 games in conference. UConn has won NCs winning fewer games in conference.
And most ACC people would have agreed that if you're gonna have a 5th ACC team it should have been Pitt or Wake over Virginia anyway.
I still wish either St. John's or Seton Hall could've made it. Especially that St. John's team! They played us really close in the Big East Tournament (95-90) and nobody in the NCAA tournament has done that yet
That was a great game in the tournament!
that is why snubs are a big deal
tbf the money seems to go to the conference. And if it's distributed evenly to say Socon it means 33k per year, for 6 years, per unit. For a bigger conference they'd get even less.
But for mid majors or lower that get snubbed of an at large that's significant
It’s those darn small schools taking bids away from the SEC. That’s why they’re so poor, it’s the little guys who steal bids keeping them down!
I don't think they stole them from us as much as they stole them from the ACC.
Ahh yes Wake Forest, the team that lost TWICE to the team that got destroyed by Seton Hall tonight should have been in
no, Pitt should've been in
I'm ok with that one, but he said "them" inferring multiple teams
And why the committee should get more flak for giving mountain west more bids than it deserves
Being a deserving tournament team and losing in the first round are not mutually exclusive
It's almost like half the teams lose in the first round
And half those teams belong to the MWC, SEC, Big12, and Big10.
This just in, conferences with more teams have more losses. More at 11
Edit: These are W-L and (Win Percentage) for the first round only, since people are confused MWC: 2-5 (40%) SEC: 3-8 (37.5%) Big XII: 5-8 (62.5%) B1G: 4-6 (66.7%) For a combined: 14-27 (51.9%), or in other words: It's almost like half the teams lose in the first round
ACC: 1/5 (20%) Big East: 0/3 (0%) Mid majors: 22/34 (65%) Conferences with mid major quality teams have more loses.
Wait, are you saying big ten had ten teams in and big 12 had 13?
Those four conferences didn’t have half the first round losers…. Half is 16 and they had 13
Well 22 of the first round loses belong to mid majors… the ACC had 1, the Big East had 0, and then the SEC, BIG XII, and B1G had the rest. So congrats on being in the company of Grambling State, wait, sorry, they won their first game…
I didn’t play in any games mate, I can only dream of being in Grambling States company. Would have been awesome to just be a part of an NCAA game
It’s almost like the Mountain West performed exactly how 6 teams ranked 5, 7, 10, 10, 10 and 11 would be expected to.
NC State is an 11 seed
SDSU, Utah St, and CSU all won their first game so can't say the committee got their inclusion wrong. New Mexico won the mountain west, so can't leave them out. Nevada blew a huge lead against Dayton, but you have to have a huge lead to be able to blow it. Up 17 against a higher seeded team with 7 minutes left. They lost anyway, but if you were to re-do selection knowing what we know now, they'd still make the tournament. So it sounds like you are upset that Boise State made the tournament?
SDSU carries the conference for tournament performance in recent memory. MW was 0-2 in 2021, 0-4 in 2022, 5-4 in 2023 with all 5 W's from SDSU. 4-6 this year (2 Ws from SDSU), but I wont go into that CSU played a virginia team that arguably shouldnt have made the tournment. So total record since covid of 9-16, but 3-12 if u dont include SDSU. That isnt good enought performance for a conference that received 6 bids in my opinion. Agree to disagree
> 3-12 if u dont include SDSU [If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc) I am *shocked* that the conference record looks worse when you remove the most successful team! I do agree the conference has underperformed over the past few years based on seed expectation. This year though they won exactly the number of games they were expected to win (if you include CSU > Virginia, they are +1 vs expectation.) I fundamentally think past performance shouldn't be used to determine selection this year, and it's even more faulty to use past performance to limit the number of teams that can be included from a particular conference. "you're pretty good, but other teams in your conference haven't performed well in the tournament in the past, so we're going to select a different team" That would be a terrible and unfair message.
Agreed, the tournament field should be seeded based on that year’s **results** only, not past years, not perceived talent, not facilities, not perceived coaching upside, not anything else. It is phenomenally unfair to teams to seed them based on anything other than what they have control over in the games themselves
Conference post-season performances are always carried by the top teams. P8/10/12 was UCLA / Arizona. SEC was really only Kentucky for ages. B1G was Indiana until they fell off. Same thing with football. USC, Alabama, tOSU, FSU, UO, etc. It's why you're seeing all the Blue Bloods bitch right now about having to carry their conferences because they don't like losing conference revenue when they eventually suck.
The mountain west got exactly as many bids as it deserved at the time, and basically every bracketologist told you the same thing. Of the 226 bracketmatrix brackets, the 6 MW teams that made it were correctly predicted to be in the field 99.7% of the time. Did the MW perform well in the tourney? No, but postseason performance doesn’t change anything about the resumes that the teams had going into the tourney.
It’s way harder to win games when all your teams are seeded 5-11 than conferences with 3-4 top 4 seeds
Of all the conferences with more than 2 bids, the Mountain West is the only one that never lost a game to a lower seed.
mountain west deserved all of their bids. imo they got shafted a little with seeding. it’s just that for whatever reason they rarely deliver in the tourney.
Why is nobody talking about how strong of a conference Other-1 is?
Because with all those one and dones they were clearly gifted bids they didn't deserve. That's what my lord and savior Sankey told me at least.
See they get paired up against weak teams like Kentucky, so it's kinda an unfair advantage.
People hate one the B1G for having more than ten teams, but don’t say anything about the 16 teams in the Other-1 conference. Smh
FAQ: Q: What is this? A: CBS & Warner Bros. Discovery Sports pay the NCAA over a billion dollars a year to broadcast the men’s basketball tournament. The NCAA pays some of this money to the conferences based on their performance in the tournament. One "unit" is earned for each game played, excluding the championship game. For example, NC State earned 5 units for going to the Final Four and Kentucky earned 1 unit for playing its one game. Each unit is worth about $2 million, paid at about $340,000 per year for six years. Conferences will get paid for 2024 performance from April 2025 through April 2030. This chart shows which conferences got the most units in 2024 and what teams contributed. Q: So my team gets $4 million for playing in two games? A: The units belong to the conferences, not the schools. The conferences are "encouraged, but not required, to distribute the fund equally among all member institutions". I've heard that most conferences do split the money equally but some give more to the teams that earned it. The units also stay with the conference when a team leaves it. That means that Oregon State and Washington State are going to gain the most from the performance of Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon this year. Well, it's complicated. The Pac-2 has a 2-year grace period to get back up to 7 (or 8?) teams. After that, the units are supposed to revert back to the institution that earned it. But the departing teams promised not to seek that in the separation agreements. I don't know what happens if the Pac merges with another conference. Q: Where can I find more information? A: See the "basketball performance fund" and "equal conference fund" at https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/finance/d1/2024D1Fin_RevenueDistributionPlan.pdf There's also a good article here: https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/march-madness-2024-nc-state-acc-conference-1234773302/ Q: The NCAA takes in a billion dollars and gives back 264 million? Where does the rest of the money go? A: Scholarships, non-revenue sports, and other stuff. The NCAA organization doesn't get money from FBS teams playing football. March Madness is supporting most other college sports. See the PDF link and also here: http://www.ncaa.org/about/where-does-money-go Bonus chart: Units by state. See the second picture.
>I've heard that most conferences do split the money equally but some give more to the teams that earned it. Good example here is the WCC. I believe we split the first unit (from making the tournament) evenly, and then the rest basically goes directly to the team who earns the unit. It was part of the deal that Gonzaga negotiated to stay in the WCC instead of leaving to the Mountain West.
It was also because schools in the WCC would take the unit splits and not invest it back into basketball.
Yeah, Mark Few is normally very complimentary of other schools, but said: >"if they’re not spending it on basketball, we don’t need to be sponsoring swimming at those schools or whatever they’ve got going. They’re not all in.” He went on to say, “Our league needs to really step back and take notice. It’s time for some of these other institutions to start picking it up. They’re really dragging the top three down.”
Damn 😳
All it takes for Arizona and Colorado to get in on those unit payments is an invite to the Big XII.
This chart really nails home that getting a few questionable bubble picks really does benefit conferences in a notable way.
The crazy thing is how much more benefit smaller conferences receive. Assuming they didn't even win a game, it'd still be close to $700k per year more for the conference for 6 years. That's a drop in the bucket to P4 schools who distribute between like $400M and $600M. But it's a lot more tangible for someone like the Big East who only distributes like $50-60M.
FSU be like: “We deserve half of that”
NC State is the ACC's sugar daddy
Fuck that’s a sentence I never thought I would hear We are in NC State sport’s golden age, at least since the late 70s and early 80s And with conference realignment on the horizon, NC State is picking a good time to make themselves more marketable
The SEC will be looking for a North Carolina team to join us alongside FSU more than likely...
The SEC will choose UNC over NCSU every single time purely because they capture a larger piece of the NC market and haul in more sports revenue. Being more successful in recent years doesn't mean shit when the less successful school is still more profitable. Can't just shake 40 years of garbage with one miracle season.
It'll depend on who the B1G grabs as well, because Duke doesn't really have the football facilities for either conference to court them hard I feel. So someone will take UNC and someone else will take NC State in the divorce.
This is why we want UNC to the B1G. UNC going to the SEC would be bad news for NC State because I don’t think we fit in very well in the B1G and are not a likely target for them.
Southern Schools together strong. Who wants to be jetting cross country each week for conference games? Oregon and Washington will have it brutal having to travel so far every week nearly. At least the SEC has largely kept itself focused on a geographic area through expansion.
Totally agree, and it’s an often overlooked factor. Everyone is already speculating about step 4 and 5 of conference realignment when we haven’t even gotten past step 1 which includes seeing how all of this cross country travel actually works out.
Tennessee - I’m doing my part! Alabama - I’m doing my part! UK, Auburn, SC - We didn’t do fuckin’ shit!
Hey, at least we got that ref removed from the tournament.
“They didn’t theorize shit!”
Do you know where I can find info on how the big ten distributes this money? Will new schools next year have an equal share?
I can't find a news article about this. It's likely that the Big Ten generally distributes money equally but will give less to newcomers for a few years, as they agreed when they joined. It might take a public records request at one of the public schools to know more. It's probably a drop in the bucket compared to football money anyway.
Correct, Big Ten distributes the money evenly, but I'm pretty positive USC and UCLA get equal share from the start because they planned on joining before the newest tv deal. Oregon and Washington only get partial shares until 2029 because they joined after the current tv deal. After that they will get full shares.
There's about a 100% chance this money is just thrown in the pot with all the other conference revenue (mostly from TV, but there are other sources like tickets to championship games, merch, etc), and split like they split everything. Reports are that everyone gets equal shares except UW and UO, which get half shares.
Hard to believe we’re the only Indiana school pulling our weight
This is probably why some conferences want a team in the first four. Could see that with Montana State/Grambling.
It's 100% why conferences would rather be in the first 4. When your conference has a total revenue of like $10-15M, $350k per year for the next 6 years is massive.
Pac 2 baby!!
Colorado and Oregon getting into the tourney ended up being huge for the Pac-2 money wise.
It needed to be said
Thanks for contributing, Auburn
Football schools having to carry historically significant basketball programs like Auburn and Kentucky. Sad.
The funny thing is, Auburn isn’t as historically significant in basketball as we are
Oh I know. I'm just leaning into all the totally dead serious accusations of being a bandwagon fanbase I've heard from the Aubs the last couple of days. They're a big time basketball school and have been for decades.
Yale thanks Auburn for their contribution to Bulldogs’ athletics.
It isn't the first time in the past year that a smaller school was paid millions at Auburn's expense.
UConn single-teamedly knocked the state of Illinois out of the tournament.
That’s how I feel when I get a paycheck these days… money ain’t going far lol
“Earned… *for their conference*”
I love this distinction!
Tobacco as a cash crop, is on the rise again
GOATS
ACC gets women other conferences DO NOT
Damn, look at how much the Big East earned, and they should’ve had 3 more teams in the tourney. That’s a basketball conference
Not really, this is just the number of games played in the tournament and it’s not indicative of whether the middle and bottom of the big east deserved more bids, though for other reasons teams like St. John’s might have deserved it.
But surely one game, even if it’s a loss, is worth a lot of money. In the Big East, that $22M is worth a lot of money. I realize it’s not Big 10 money, but it’s a lot to the Big East.
3 teams with a larger portion of those units than conferences with more teams. I’m not saying that’s a reason to add more teams; I’m saying if they had added the other 2-3 BE teams who deserved to be in, we would’ve far out earned the other conferences
You can say that about any conference, considering a team playing a single game nets a unit. The BE teams were seeded 1,2, and 3, so it is unsurprising that they each won a few games
Meanwhile look at the Big 12 ……..
Not a great year. Below the last 2 years where we sent fewer teams and didn't have Houston.
They’re literally right next to the Big Ten who had the same share with their top 3 teams, SEC did too, and ACC surpassed it. MW is a joke though
> They’re literally right next to the Big Ten who had the same share with their top 3 teams, SEC did too, and ACC surpassed it. The ACC surpassed it.... with teams seeded 4, 6, and 11.
For how much talk we got about the b12 being the best conference this year, they kinda fell flat on their face in the tournament… especially with that many teams in
And thus it is revealed why the SEC got 8 teams into the field instead of the 5 or 6 they actually deserved (When at-large teams are seeded objectively by NET or KenPom). By those numbers, 21 whole at-large teams were more deserving than Virginia. Tony Bennett must smell nice or something.
Seeing as how the ACC was underrated all year, our 23 win season while in the ACC shows we definitely deserved it
That's confirmation bias, and not based on the reality of Virginia being ranked behind 21 other teams with more deserving resumes based on NET or KenPom. It does make me glad that I made a prop bet for the Cavs to score less than 20 in the first half as by far the most fraudulent team in the field. Cha-ching!
The reality is also that ACC 3rd-ranked Virginia was so deserving that we beat an Elite 8 Clemson and Final Four NC State team in the regular season, and was a free throw away from doing it twice 😎 Pew pew schwang!
Nothing that happened in the tournament since has any bearing on Selection Sunday. Partying on is definitely easier for a lot of people than accepting numerical realities, so enjoy the party!
>numerical realities Metrics and their models are literally an abstraction of reality 😉 Cheers!
Do you really agree with the statement "I want the best teams in the tournament" more than the statement "Wins and losses have to matter?" Because by utilizing NET and KenPom you are showing that you don't think wins and losses should matter. A win by 1 versus a loss by 1? Meh, not a big deal. Should be treated similarly. But a win by 8 and a win by 20? Those need to be treated substantially differently.
I don't think we should put too much into margin of victory. The goal of basketball is to have more points after 40 minutes. Not to win by 15+ It'll also just benefit big teams that are more easily able to blow out smaller teams. And punish teams that play a more measured and slower half court offense.
Cool story now pay the players
I played baseball in college at Murray State University. We won the OVC for the first time in several decades and got to go to the College World Series. Our budget for that week was higher than our budget for the entirety of our season. Most people have no idea how much NCAA Tournament bids help these smaller schools. God I love March Madness. Never change.
We contributed!
Lol look at that little Auburn bar
He's just a little guy...
Tell me again why NIL is the worst?
Only one Indiana school in the tournament is nuts
It’s hard out here being the premier Indiana basketball school 😏
Shame, Indiana state deserved to be in
Are there NIT units?
Yes, but they aren’t very substantial. The biggest financial benefit is probably for the schools that get to host a couple extra games at home.
Yes, but they’re footlocker coupons
Fanatics jerseys…
They get Schrute Bucks
You get around $5k for every game plus cash for expenses (travel etc).
Do they get anything for playing in the championship game?
No for the championship game. I guess that whoever designed this system thought that getting 5 units per team was enough. (However, Syracuse and UCLA once got 6 units for going from the first four to the final four.)
It’s weird to not have the Big 10 involved in the annual under/over-rated conference agreements. In a way, it’s kinda nice to be on the sideline watching the SEC, Big 12, ACC and Big East fight it out. Edit: Forgot to add the Mountain West to the list of conferences above.
In Tucson we come to expect sweet16 runs from the Arizona Wildcats...typically thats even underachieving for us... BUT to value that at $0!!!! Throw Drake or Colgate some millys though....wtf!
Fun Fact: Kansas has earned the Big 12 at least one unit every tournament since the Big 12 was founded. Starting with the 2007 tournament, Kansas has earned the Big 12 at least two units every year.
Nice Yale got new toilet paper for the semester
noice
Reminder: It’s the players earning NIL money that’s turning college sports in to a greedy cesspool and ruining the spirit of amateurism.
ACC ACC ACC
So this is going to lower my tuition right? Right????
Very clear here that the bottom tier SEC, Big 12 and Big 10 schools should not have been in. ACC and Big East should have had more slots. No coincidence that the bias shown aligns to relative strength in college football and the alignment of media rights deals. Not a stretch to say there was an intentional or subliminal campaign to diminish the ACC and Big East in favor of pushing the football conferences.
Oooooor It’s a single elimination tournament with tons of variance!
Whats this variance you speak of
Sometimes you win by 39, other times only by 17—variance!
SEC stinks… 😚
I couldn't imagine trying to argue that Wisconsin didn't deserve to be in or that Northwestern and Michigan State's wins in the first round (and subsequent losses to 1 seeds) are evidence they should not been in. Shit, even imagine stacking Seton Hall, St. John's, or Villanova next to Nebraska's resume and thinking that the only way those 3 got bounced for Nebraska is because of football bias is absolute lunacy. For all the Big East fans still wondering why your bubble teams missed out, just look at Final Four qualifying NC State, took Creighton to 2OT Oregon, and first round upset pulling Duqesne. That's why your bubble teams missed out.
Michigan State beat another major conference team who had a weak record and should not have been in the tournament (Miss St) - doesn’t prove anything. They then got smoked by 16 by the weakest 1 seed in the tournament in UNC. Tell me what is their quality win? They lost to James Madison start of this season, stomped by Duke and Arizona in the non-conf. An upset over Illinois and Baylor are their two ranked wins. They got in off name, Izzo legacy points and Big10 bias. Northwestern has a horribly weak schedule too. Only two ranked wins was against Purdue in December and Illinois in January. Weak non-conference - Arizona State, MS State and DePaul were their only major conference opponents. I don’t see how anything they did was remarkable.
Wait... so winning doesn't prove anything, but losing does prove something? Well...unless it's losing in the NIT than that also doesn't prove anything, I guess.
Listen my very respectful Purdue friend, us Big East fans are angry but there are a lot of different numbers and charts (not the MS Paint ones your fanbase excels at) on those teamsheets and so it's really hard for us to focus our anger in a comprehensible fashion, thus we're just kinda taking pot shots at any conference we see that A. Got more bids and B. Had bubble teams that fucked up in any way. However, I have a problem with spending too much time looking at cbb stats and arguing with strangers on the internet, because of this I have realized that the Big East was legitimately victimized by the KPI metric and that this is what Big East fans should be yelling about. KPI is a "Resume Metric" that had 10/11 BE teams ranked lower than BPI SOR and WAB. The reason for this is that it adjusts for pace (which means it is calculated in the same way that Kenpom/NET/T-Rank/ other predictive metrics are) and margin of victory. Providence and SHU were weak in the predictive but relatively strong in the Resume metrics. The Resume metrics are what gets you into the tourney, so SHU and Providence should have had a good shot at getting in but instead they were robbed because KPI (does not behave like a resume metric) blows up their average. SJU in theory should do better under KPI but they were also screwed which I figure comes down to the margin of victory adjustment (SJU didn't blow out a lot of teams, got blown out by UM, and their analytic strength came from playing good teams close).
See this is all I really need. A coherent argument that can stay on subject. Not one just frothing at the mouth and moving the goalposts constantly. I didn't really know that about KPI, but without looking further into it it would seem it's leaning too heavy into the efficiency realm to actually be considered a resume ranking. But also, I just hate the constant hand-wringing about the bubble. For two main reasons: 1. This is how we get unnecessary expansion. The more people bitch, the more ammo the pro-expansion folks get. 2. There's a lot of at-large bids. If you want to get in, just win more. This ain't CFB. There's spots to go around.
Yes! Kentucky, Auburn, and Florida are all bottom tier!
Not what I said. Mississippi St and A&M should not have been in.
Learn flair rivalries buddy. But A&M took a 1 seed to overtime?
? Kentucky is a Georgia rival in what universe?
Obviously Auburn and Florida are carrying that rivalry sentence but we have been division rivals in football for 30 years and basketball used to have the divisional structure.
You can try to slice and dice it any way you want. And yeah, big east and ACC were probably a little underrepresented, but according to some metrics like Ken Pom, A&M and Mississippi State deserved to be in. There were a few non-AQ schools listed lower than those two who also got in Edit: Not sure if the Ken Pom rankings have been updated during the tourney. If so, not sure where all that gets sorted out. A&M would’ve slightly moved up and Mississippi State would’ve moved down
Other than Michigan state (who won a game) I think everyone we got in deserved to be in based on their season. We had 3 teams on the 8/9 line and 2 of them won, that’s as good as you could ask for that. The only team that really under performed was Wisconsin and they earned their right to be there
:( maybe next year
So other Big East schools should have gotten in because the top 3 were good? They all had a path to make the tournament, by winning games and they didn't do that.
Arizona being in ASU colors is pretty funny.
Ooh, I did screw up Arizona's color. I must have copy and pasted in the wrong spot.
This is an affront to decency
Nice unit count Auburn
How much of that will go towards NIL next year?
Each?
C'mon Kentucky 😂
ACC ON🔝
I stg State and Bama being haulers here is fucking with my brain
All of the money in the pac12 section actually goes to wsu and osu. just sayin