PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Bilas: Making D1 smaller would make it more competitive


#1

An interesting take

The “little guys” are demanding too many games. Nobody watches the “little guys” when they are on TV. “Occasional” upsets in the NCAA tournament are cute, but it would be better overall if we threw out the “little guys”

Bilas is such a moron. In what framework does reducing participation increase competition? Remember when Bilas whined about the “little guy” VCU getting into the tournament instead of some crappy VT squad and then VCU came within a game of the national title? What a joke. He’s like a lobbyist for some aspiring monopolist trying to push out their competition. Intellectual honesty was never ESPN’s strong suit.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=7908722&slug=reducing-size-division-make-better-ncaa-hoops-product-ncb&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb%2fblog%3fname%3dbilas_jay%26id%3d7908722%26_slug_%3dreducing-size-division-make-better-ncaa-hoops-product-ncb


#2

I kind of like it the way it is. Are there some 15/16 seeds that have no business being in the tourney? Sure.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not fun to watch these guys give their all against a 1 seed in probably the acme of their sports careers.


#3

An America East board speculates that Bilas is tired of getting crap from his law school buddies about losing to Lehigh. :slight_smile:


#4

Jay, your job is to analyze games, not create campaigns to see the little guy get shut out. Why is it that ESPN lets their analysts spew this kind of nonsensical stuff? What Jay is proposing would have tremendous effects on the NCAA, and could cost them millions of dollars in antitrust lawsuits. Similar to the BCS, but with more teams, and conferences to pay it out towards if they lost.

tjb, would that mean Duke doesn’t qualify for the NCAA Tournament since clearly Lehigh beat them? :smiley:


#5

espn.com had some others with differing view points yesterday. I don’t have access to Twitter right now, but Dana O’Neil was one of them.


#6

I’d rather they add 1 more weekend and let everyone in.


#7

Jay’s job is to generate eyes, ears, page views …


#8

[quote=“rwd5035, post:4, topic:3293”]Jay, your job is to analyze games, not create campaigns to see the little guy get shut out. Why is it that ESPN lets their analysts spew this kind of nonsensical stuff? What Jay is proposing would have tremendous effects on the NCAA, and could cost them millions of dollars in antitrust lawsuits. Similar to the BCS, but with more teams, and conferences to pay it out towards if they lost.

tjb, would that mean Duke doesn’t qualify for the NCAA Tournament since clearly Lehigh beat them? :D[/quote]

It just is so weird to me that it is coming from Bilas. He is a smart person. If Vitale or Colin Blowhard said this, I’d totally ignore it.

Bilas knows that it makes no sense to say what he is saying. He is not talking about just the NCAA tournament, he is talking about division 1 in general. He is saying that a world with only the big 6 conferences (maybe a few more) would be more competitive than the current setup with around 25.

It is nonsense because within the last 10 years we’ve seen multiple appearances by the Horizon League and CAA in the final 4. We’ve seen the Mountain West become almost elite as a conference, Gonzaga become almost elite out of the WCC, and we see top 25 teams in all kinds of conferences.


#9

I’d hate that. Makes the regular season rather meaningless. The excitment of February/March and especially Championship week makes everything perfect right now as far as I see it (well, I would get back to 64, but the 68 sure beats any of the other proposals that I’ve heard).


#10

[quote=“psuarva, post:1, topic:3293”]An interesting take

The “little guys” are demanding too many games. Nobody watches the “little guys” when they are on TV. “Occasional” upsets in the NCAA tournament are cute, but it would be better overall if we threw out the “little guys”

Bilas is such a moron. In what framework does reducing participation increase competition? Remember when Bilas whined about the “little guy” VCU getting into the tournament instead of some crappy VT squad and then VCU came within a game of the national title? What a joke. He’s like a lobbyist for some aspiring monopolist trying to push out their competition. Intellectual honesty was never ESPN’s strong suit.[/quote]

Plenty of frameworks. First of all, focus on what he actually said, specifically “It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.”

Let me ask you this. If I suddenly added all the AAA minor league baseball teams to the major leagues, don’t you think that would result in a lot more non-competitive games? You bet it would. So the converse has to be true. Subtracting the lower tiered schools from D1 would result in more competitive games. Just like Bilas says.


#11
I'd rather they add 1 more weekend and let everyone in.

I’d hate that. Makes the regular season rather meaningless. The excitment of February/March and especially Championship week makes everything perfect right now as far as I see it (well, I would get back to 64, but the 68 sure beats any of the other proposals that I’ve heard).

For schools in 1 bid conferences the regular season already is meaningless. You can undefeated in your conference during the regular season but if you lose in the conference tournament you don’t make the NCAA tournament while a team who may have had a losing record in the regular season makes the tournament. I would be in favor of raising the number who make the NCAA Tournament if it would allow inclusion of all regular season champions.


#12
[quote="BubblingLion, post:6, topic:3293"]I'd rather they add 1 more weekend and let everyone in.[/quote]

I’d hate that. Makes the regular season rather meaningless. The excitment of February/March and especially Championship week makes everything perfect right now as far as I see it (well, I would get back to 64, but the 68 sure beats any of the other proposals that I’ve heard).

For schools in 1 bid conferences the regular season already is meaningless. You can undefeated in your conference during the regular season but if you lose in the conference tournament you don’t make the NCAA tournament while a team who may have had a losing record in the regular season makes the tournament. I would be in favor of raising the number who make the NCAA Tournament if it would allow inclusion of all regular season champions.

I’d rather they keep it as is. Makes the conference tournaments that much more exciting. If they allow the regular season champ an auto bid, it dampens the excitement. Plus, how long before the regular season champ takes a dive so the conference can get a second bid? I like the way it is with the exception of PSU should get in more often.


#13
[quote="psuarva, post:1, topic:3293"]An interesting take

The “little guys” are demanding too many games. Nobody watches the “little guys” when they are on TV. “Occasional” upsets in the NCAA tournament are cute, but it would be better overall if we threw out the “little guys”

Bilas is such a moron. In what framework does reducing participation increase competition? Remember when Bilas whined about the “little guy” VCU getting into the tournament instead of some crappy VT squad and then VCU came within a game of the national title? What a joke. He’s like a lobbyist for some aspiring monopolist trying to push out their competition. Intellectual honesty was never ESPN’s strong suit.[/quote]

Plenty of frameworks. First of all, focus on what he actually said, specifically “It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.”

Let me ask you this. If I suddenly added all the AAA minor league baseball teams to the major leagues, don’t you think that would result in a lot more non-competitive games? You bet it would. So the converse has to be true. Subtracting the lower tiered schools from D1 would result in more competitive games. Just like Bilas says.


Lar, I agree with you that this is how I understood Bilas’s comment, not in reference to how many mid-majors make the tourney. I also agee with your point that fewer teams would increase the competition.

I also think Bilas has a point that there seems to be Div I inflation in the last 10 years. I don’t have the numbers (I kind of remember Lar doing this on one of the old boards) but I don’t think removing the RPI 250+ from Div I would be terribly missed BUT then whom do you send packing? Most of the lower conerences have a few respectible RPI schools, but it’s the bottom few of a number of conferences you would have to eliminate. I just don’t see how it could be done.


#14
[quote="psuarva, post:1, topic:3293"]An interesting take

The “little guys” are demanding too many games. Nobody watches the “little guys” when they are on TV. “Occasional” upsets in the NCAA tournament are cute, but it would be better overall if we threw out the “little guys”

Bilas is such a moron. In what framework does reducing participation increase competition? Remember when Bilas whined about the “little guy” VCU getting into the tournament instead of some crappy VT squad and then VCU came within a game of the national title? What a joke. He’s like a lobbyist for some aspiring monopolist trying to push out their competition. Intellectual honesty was never ESPN’s strong suit.[/quote]

Plenty of frameworks. First of all, focus on what he actually said, specifically “It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.”

Let me ask you this. If I suddenly added all the AAA minor league baseball teams to the major leagues, don’t you think that would result in a lot more non-competitive games? You bet it would. So the converse has to be true. Subtracting the lower tiered schools from D1 would result in more competitive games. Just like Bilas says.


Lar, I agree with you that this is how I understood Bilas’s comment, not in reference to how many mid-majors make the tourney. I also agee with your point that fewer teams would increase the competition.

I also think Bilas has a point that there seems to be Div I inflation in the last 10 years. I don’t have the numbers (I kind of remember Lar doing this on one of the old boards) but I don’t think removing the RPI 250+ from Div I would be terribly missed BUT then whom do you send packing? Most of the lower conerences have a few respectible RPI schools, but it’s the bottom few of a number of conferences you would have to eliminate. I just don’t see how it could be done.

It wouldn’t be done by conference, but by performance. At least that’s how I’d see it going down. I just don’t see it happening in the near future. Too many people love the Cinderella story. Maybe if we have a run of tourneys without upsets…


#15
[quote="psuarva, post:1, topic:3293"]An interesting take

The “little guys” are demanding too many games. Nobody watches the “little guys” when they are on TV. “Occasional” upsets in the NCAA tournament are cute, but it would be better overall if we threw out the “little guys”

Bilas is such a moron. In what framework does reducing participation increase competition? Remember when Bilas whined about the “little guy” VCU getting into the tournament instead of some crappy VT squad and then VCU came within a game of the national title? What a joke. He’s like a lobbyist for some aspiring monopolist trying to push out their competition. Intellectual honesty was never ESPN’s strong suit.[/quote]

Plenty of frameworks. First of all, focus on what he actually said, specifically “It is time to seriously consider making Division I smaller, streamlined and therefore more competitive and meaningful.”

Let me ask you this. If I suddenly added all the AAA minor league baseball teams to the major leagues, don’t you think that would result in a lot more non-competitive games? You bet it would. So the converse has to be true. Subtracting the lower tiered schools from D1 would result in more competitive games. Just like Bilas says.

More competitive games do not seem to be all that Bilas is after. He says: nobody watches small schools when they are on TV. So he wants the BCS conferences to have less competition for TV time, as I read it.

I don’t even know how you determine the “lower tier” to drop. It would be arbitrary and wrong. 20 years ago you might have dropped Lehigh or VCU or Norfolk State or George Mason or Gonzaga or Butler or whatever. It is a horrible idea and he can’t prove that the supposedly more competitive games would outweigh the downside of arbitrarily dropping programs to D2. Who would make the decision? The NCAA? Bilas? This is a transparent pitch for collusion.

The only justification would be that competition in D1 basketball is not workable with this many schools. But clearly it is, and the NCAA tournament shows us that all the time. Nobody has more egg on their face in that regard than Bilas, with his infinitely embarrassing diatribe against VCU in 2011.


#16

I never listen/read anything from Bilas.


#17
[quote="BubblingLion, post:6, topic:3293"]I'd rather they add 1 more weekend and let everyone in.[/quote]

I’d hate that. Makes the regular season rather meaningless. The excitment of February/March and especially Championship week makes everything perfect right now as far as I see it (well, I would get back to 64, but the 68 sure beats any of the other proposals that I’ve heard).

For schools in 1 bid conferences the regular season already is meaningless. You can undefeated in your conference during the regular season but if you lose in the conference tournament you don’t make the NCAA tournament while a team who may have had a losing record in the regular season makes the tournament. I would be in favor of raising the number who make the NCAA Tournament if it would allow inclusion of all regular season champions.

Most of the time, yes. But if a team in those conferences is good enough, they can still get an at-large if they need it (ie. Murray St last year or Bucknell in 2006 would have done enough). Do you really think that the NCAA tournament was less exciting last year because Stony Brook, Savannah St, Valpo, and Bucknell didn’t make it? Sure, it sucks for those teams that they had that great of a season and didn’t make it, but the conference is making the decision to grant their bid to the tourney champ. Really, I think Championship Week is that more exciting since you have those teams fighting for their lives to make the tourney. Give them an auto-bid for winning the regular season and you lose some of that.


#18

Having slaved…um, I mean, worked for them for the better part of two years of my life, I couldn’t say it any better, especially the “honesty” part. Good on you, psuarva.


#19
[quote="BubblingLion, post:6, topic:3293"]I'd rather they add 1 more weekend and let everyone in.[/quote]

I’d hate that. Makes the regular season rather meaningless. The excitment of February/March and especially Championship week makes everything perfect right now as far as I see it (well, I would get back to 64, but the 68 sure beats any of the other proposals that I’ve heard).

For schools in 1 bid conferences the regular season already is meaningless. You can undefeated in your conference during the regular season but if you lose in the conference tournament you don’t make the NCAA tournament while a team who may have had a losing record in the regular season makes the tournament. I would be in favor of raising the number who make the NCAA Tournament if it would allow inclusion of all regular season champions.

Most of the time, yes. But if a team in those conferences is good enough, they can still get an at-large if they need it (ie. Murray St last year or Bucknell in 2006 would have done enough). Do you really think that the NCAA tournament was less exciting last year because Stony Brook, Savannah St, Valpo, and Bucknell didn’t make it? Sure, it sucks for those teams that they had that great of a season and didn’t make it, but the conference is making the decision to grant their bid to the tourney champ. Really, I think Championship Week is that more exciting since you have those teams fighting for their lives to make the tourney. Give them an auto-bid for winning the regular season and you lose some of that.

Agree with frats here. Champ week is a great appetizer for the NCAA tourney. And we are seeing 1-bid conferences start to help out the top seeds in their tourneys (like playing on their home court, giving double byes, leaving out the bottom teams from the tourney, etc.) in order to make sure they send a team to the NCAA’s that is relatively worthy. I think this is a smart idea by those leagues to make sure one of their best teams go while still having a conference event and giving everyone a chance to play their way in.


#20

It absolutely would. But when MLB has expanded in the past, they have not added a number of teams equal to all the AAA teams. They have added 1 or 2 at a time. And at times there has been contraction, and considerations of contraction.

I don’t know of any time when the NCAA imposed a minimum limit on the number of D1 men’s basketball schools. As far as I know, schools that meet the criteria for D1 participation are free to apply to move up or down in division. Nothing suggests to me that the NCAA has created inefficiency by requiring more D1 basketball schools than are demanded. I would guess that the number of schools in D1 is about right.

Bilas is arguing for the NCAA to impose an administrative maximum on the number of D1 basketball schools, to benefit the large schools and BCS conferences. His strategy doesn’t seem to be very enlightened.