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.

Mid-Major Conference Tournaments: The Problem

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

As University of Albany standout Mike Black drove down the lane in a 59-59 game with under 5 seconds to play in the semi-finals of the America East Men’s Basketball Tournament, with a chance to play in the all hallowed NCAA Tournament on the line, I knew exactly what was about to happen. The #4 seeded Great Danes of Albany were about to upset my #1 seeded Stony Brook University Seawolves and move on to the conference finals for a shot at the bright lights of the big dance.

Black scored with 2.4 seconds to play to put the Danes up 61-59, which would end up being the final score.  I wondered how the conference leadership could possibility allow this to come to fruition; it seemed unreal to me that a team with a 9-7 conference record at the time (Albany, who held a 22-10 record overall) could possibly be in a position to host and beat a team that only lost 6 games the entire season (Stony Brook held a 14-2 conference record and a 24-6 record overall).

What good reason, I said to myself (and anyone that would listen to me for that matter), would the conference have to select a tournament format where one team, regardless of seed determined by season performance, gets to play in front of their home fans in every game up until the final? The answer I came up with?

There aren’t any.

The plight of the 2012-2013 Seawolves is a familiar one in the world mid-major college hoops. In any given year, there are two or three teams from lower ranked conferences (think the America East, the Summit League, or the Patriot League) who fall prey to a system that, simply put, does not reward excellence. The sad reality for teams in conferences sitting near the bottom of Division 1 college basketball is that regular season performance just does not matter. Save a near undefeated campaign or a top 50 RPI (which may or may not get you an at-large bid for teams at this level) the only way into the NCAA Tournament for teams in the bottom 10 or 15 conferences is through one’s conference tournament.

While clearly not the most “fair” system, it is the standard and it needs to be embraced (because it’s just not going away anytime soon). The truth of the matter is that 8 out of the 10 members of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee are athletic directors or commissioners from high major conferences (perhaps one could make the argument that the West Coast Conference Commissioner should be considered a mid-major representative and that number is really 7, but I would argue that the perennial success of WCC teams like Gonzaga, BYU, and St.Mary’s in the sport of men’s basketball dictates otherwise).

Until the ratio of high-major to mid-major representatives on the committee draws closer to 1:1, there is going to be a natural tendency for these committee members representing conferences like the ACC, BIG TEN, and the PAC 12 to give at-large bids to mediocre, high major bubble teams (i.e. Minnesota in 2012-2013, with an 8-10 conference record) over successful mid-majors like Stony Brook.

I’m not saying that a team like Stony Brook would have necessarily performed equal to or better than Minnesota if given a shot in the NCAA Tournament (because Minnesota did end up beating a very good UCLA team in the 2013 tournament), I’m merely saying that it’s impossible to know how they would have performed because mid-major teams aren’t given proportional opportunity relative to high major teams.

This profound disparity of opportunity does not mean that mid-major conferences aren’t given a chance to shine under the bright lights of the big dance. This places a substantial burden on conferences to make absolutely certain that they are doing everything in their power to get their best team through their conference tournaments.

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