Mid-Major Conference Tournaments: The Solution

This is Part II of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball tournament reform.  To read Part I, click here.  
The all-important question then becomes what can a mid-major conference do to ensure that their distinguished team has the best chance of making it through the conference tournament? I would argue that one of the most significant ways that a conference can do this is through implementing a tournament format that rewards the most successful teams.

The format used in the America East during the 2012-2013 season is a perfect illustration of a conference doing the complete opposite.By allowing the highest bidding school to host the tournament and play all of the games up until the final (which is then played at the highest remaining seed) on their home floor, the conference was allowing teams to buy arguably the most influential advantage in all of college hoops that doesn’t concern talent of players and coaches- a raucous home crowd. In my opinion, this runs contrary to the spirit of college athletics, and to the credit of the America East leadership, the format has been changed to a campus sites model for the 2014-2015 season.

 It is my contention that all traditional mid-major conferences that generally do not have access to at-large bids should adopt this campus sites model that has already been put in place by the likes of the Northeast Conference and the Patriot League. One of the most basic principles in Division 1 college basketball is that teams win more often at home than on the road. Looking at the Summit League for example, in an analysis of 388 conference games, the home team won 61.60% of the time. In the Sun Belt, an analysis of 594 conference games concluded that the home team won 63.30% of the time.

This data provides backing for the assertion that home teams win mid-major college basketball games, and by implementing a campus sites format (in which the team with the higher seed as determined by season performance plays before their home crowd), conferences are doing their part to provide a safety net to teams who have demonstrated their ability to represent their conferences successfully all year long.

Neutral site models and formats similar to the one used by the America East in the 2012-2013 season, simply do not do this. The question then becomes why should mid-major conferences want their best team to represent them in the NCAA Tournament? The truth is that conferences have every incentive to get their best representative to the massive audience of the NCAA Tournament.

Economically, it pays for conferences to send teams that have a chance to sneak a win or make a Cinderella run. While first round and play-in game losers bring conferences $1.9 million under the NCAA’s Revenue Distribution Plan (teams get compensated for every game they compete in), teams that make a run in the tournament can earn up to $9.5 million for their conference if they make the Final Four (and if a team loses after the first round but before the Final Four, it can be anywhere in-between $1.9 and $9.5 million).  This revenue can and does go a long way for mid-major conferences.

Using the America East as a representative example, there are 19 other sports that the conference and member schools must find a way to fund (because nearly all of the other sports are either revenue neutral or lose money). When it comes down to it, if a conference can find ways to get their best team into the NCAA Tournament, it can make operating the rest of the conference that much easier. Additionally, in order to capitalize on the potential for licensing deals in merchandizing and TV, mid-major conferences need to build a brand.

With that said, it’s impossible for a conference to build a brand that is recognizable to the casual college basketball fan if its one team is losing in the first round of the Tournament every year. Networks aren’t lining up to secure contracts with conferences like the America East, especially if the best teams aren't the ones representing the conference on a consistent basis.  

Let’s face it, brands are built in March. The Colonial Athletic Association and the Ivy League weren’t awarded national television contracts with NBC because they have a history of losing in the first round of the Tournament (granted the IVY League doesn’t have a conference tournament, but I believe that is taking things too far and is an issue for another article). On the contrary, it’s historic runs deep into March by the likes of VCU (in 2011) and Cornell (in 2010) that attracts networks to conferences, and it’s this kind of history that attracts the casual viewer and builds name recognition.

Only once a known brand is established can a mid-major conference like the America East ascend in the ranks of college basketball. While it can be argued that teams control their own destiny and as such the best teams will make it through these conference tournaments, sometimes things go awry. No team is perfect, and conferences need to do their part to reward the best teams for their demonstrated success.

At the end of the day, it is in the best interests of mid-major conferences to see their best team advance to the NCAA Tournament.  This means that it is critical that they set procedures for their conference tournament that promotes positive outcomes for the best team, and I am of the opinion that a campus sites model is one of the most effective ways to do so.

This is Part II of a two-part post on mid-major college basketball conference tournaments. Click here for Part I.