WWRD? Part II: BracketBusters

Another thing that will not be surprising to many (if anyone) readers of previous blogs is my stance on the treatment of the mid-majors by the NCAA.  Pure and simple, it sucks.  If you have an affiliation with an organization, you should be treated equally under the rule of law for that organization.

But those familiar with the BCS or the NCAA's selection process for March Madness know that no matter how the NCAA tries to sell it, the little brothers in the Mega(lomaniac) Organization (MO) are brushed aside as so much fodder, not worthy of competing with the big boys.  While it is true that the big conferences get the better recruits, can afford more scholarships, etc etc, when it comes time for put or shut up against stronger mid-majors like Boise State (football) or Gonzaga/Butler (basketball), the big boys usually find an excuse.  In football this year, it was pitting Boise State and TCU against each other instead of having either ply their trade against a major college team when both qualified for at-large BCS bids this year.  In basketball, it was ninth seed UNI and 12th seed Cornell pulling upsets of major colleges after being severely underseeded in the tournament (I don't include St. Mary's as they were a bubble team before winning the WCC tournament over Gonzaga and most likely a justifiable 10th seed).

How to fix this?  Football is an obvious answer because anyone with half a brain who is not motivated by the MO's money believes the BCS should be eliminated in favor of a 16-team playoff.  Basketball is a little more complicated (no, 96 teams in the Madness is not the answer) but I think it is doable if the MO would just put a little elbow grease into the solution.  In a word, term, or phrase--BracketBusters.

ESPN created the concept several years ago when the four-letter decided to partner with mid-major colleges to give them more exposure by having likely top schools from mid-major conferences play each other on a specific weekend.  This helped the network because it created a scenario where a loss could be devastating to a possible bubble team later on if they ended up paired against their vanquisher in the determination of at-large bids.  Problem is, many of the teams were conference winners so there were fewer opportunities for this to happen.  Case in point--UNI defeated Old Dominion during BB weekend this year and that solidified at-large consideration based on RPI but both teams won their conference tournaments so the drama was lost come selection time.

My suggestion expands on the BracketBuster concept.  What BracketBusters lacks is the inclusion of the major colleges, especially those that are bubble material themselves.  While a win or solid performance against a top 20 major college would bring a mid-major more attention come Selection time, it is the fallacy that the 5th and 6th best teams in major conference deserve to be in the tournament over a strong mid-major that mid-majors must overcome.  But if this concept played out over a five-year period, it would start to establish the mid-majors as a force to be better considered come tournament time (or it would make the fallacy a reality after several defeats).

My suggestion would move a couple of the non-conference games from the start of the season to the middle.  Schools would play the first half of their conference seasons and then have two weeks of non-conference BracketBuster play.  A formula based on a team's position in their conference would set the match-ups with pre-determined home courts.  Hey, if the NCAA can come up with the BCS, they sure as hell can create a usable formula to determine these matchups--at least they won't have to worry about the "fairness" factor which they have destroyed with the BCS (since this is purely to determine mid-season matchups between mid-major and major conference teams and home courts would be pre-determined, "fairness" shouldn't be an issue).

And the money!  Can you imagine the money the MO could garner through a lucrative deal with ESPN or some other tv partner (like ESPN2, ESPN Classic, or ESPN Deportes) whereas games would be spread out and televised every day for two weeks straight?  You can't tell me that with the right marketing machine and well-thought out planning (which could be a stretch for the MO), they couldn't make this an annual event that would have every serious college basketball fan (and the mainstream ones as well) exactly what they want in drama, complete with outstanding "Big Dance"-like ratings but in midseason.

But the end result would be the icing.  More comparable results with which to make better-informed decisions come Selection Sunday.  No need to expand to 96 teams because the drama and extra money they "think" would be generated by expansion and the elimination of the NIT would be happening in mid-season as team's postseason hopes are strengthened or dashed based on this two-week period.  Not to mention the sense of urgency it would create for some teams heading into the second half of the conference season.

But this would be true "forward" thinking.  The NCAA would prefer to make the easy money-making decisions that require little thought and even easier advance planning.  That's why the MO will continue to be an antiquated, money-oriented body that will always be the laughingstock of all sports organizations.

At least until baseball's HGH era begins...

Up Next:  Part III:  Eliminate Super Conferences

Peace,
Reg