Conspiracy Theory

[panther2317]

I really thought someone would haveposted this on here by now, but since it hasn't been talked about, I'll start it.

Steve Deace, sports personality on KXNO, on his show yesterday advanced a conspriacy theory about the NCAA Selection Committee. It's out there, but it is plausible. It goes a little something like this:

He basically said that what happened Sunday was the first 105-team field for the NCAA Tournament. Now, I know what you're thinking, that the NCAA only has 65 teams in it's field. But remember, the NCAA purchased the 40-team NIT field as well. And we all know the only reason the NCAA does anything is...that's right, to make money. So, now they have to find a way to make money in this tournament as well. They do get a small rights fee from ESPN to air this tournament, but the real money is made with ticket revenue from campus sites.

So, that being said, what do Florida State, Creighton, Michigan, Missouri State and Maryland have in common that is different from Utah State, Air Force and Seton Hall???

They have available ON CAMPUS facilities, near large populations centers with average to above average fan bases that will purchase tickets to home games in the NIT (especially if there are good match-ups. Seton Hall plays off campus in the Meadowlands and would not have been a viable option for a first or second round home game...they would have lost money because they have to rent the facility, Utah State is in Logan, Utah and Air Force is on Colorado Springs. Not exactly huge populations centers in the last two that could bring tons of ticket revenue to a game or two.

Since they know people will watch March Madness no matter who they put in the NCAA's, they have to find some good teams (with home arenas that can sell tickets) that people will watch on television. So, he thinks that the NCAA brackets were done with the NIT in mind. I don't think he's that far off from the truth.

I believe that (like PTTB has told us) this is a year that will determine NCAA payouts to conferences for the next 6 years. Because of this fact, I believe that the NCAA is unwilling to give the Valley a larger portion of their revenue than the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 10, which could have happened if the Valley had gotten 5 or 6 teams. They would have had to justify giving the Valley that much money for the next 6 years. It would not have gone away.

So...call me and Deace "Oliver Stone" if you want...but it's the only plausible theory to me that Air Force and Utah State were in the NCAA's and Michigan, Missouri State and Creighton are in the NIT. One other thing solidifies this theory to me, yesterday Andy Katz came out and said that Western Kentucky and Hofstra were the next two teams left out! What? So Missouri State, #21 in the RPI...wasn't even in the top 67??? Huh?

What do you think???

[UNI92]

I was listening as well and thought this argument is brilliant and makes a lot of sense.
I would like this brought up to the NCAA or the committee.
I have not heard about this theory or read it anywhere except when I heard it yesterday.

[Panthers to the Bone]

The NCAA pays out yearly money over a 6 year span. One year doesn't set the money line for 6 years, but yet each year's money is spread out over 6 years. For example, the MVC is still receiving paydays for the 2001-2006 tourneys. Next year (2007), UNI will receive payouts for the 2002-2007 tourneys.

[Matt Trump]

2317, you listen to Deace too much!!!

[panther2317]

The money thing wasn't his idea...it was mine. But I think he's nailed it right on the head. Deace speaks the truth...or is trying to stir the pot. I think he did both yesterday and I agree with his theory.

[Matt Trump]

Yeah, i was just giving you a hard time. I like Deace.

[panther2317]

I know Reed...you like Deace like I like Mike's Hard Lemonade.

[SteinPizza]

That makes some sense. Tallahassee and Omaha don't count as "major populations centers" certainly not from a TV perspective. However, CU certainly does draw well, and I'd guess FSU does too. That's the big hole in that arguement, as broadcast rights money always matters more than attendance. If it's only gate money the NCAA is concerned with, then this makes more sense.

I heard another conspiracy theory yesterday, that the president and AD at Cincy told the committee that unless the Bearcats were a lock, to leave them out of the NCAA so as to whipe the slate clean from the Bob Huggins era. One of his assistants is the interim coach, and they supposedly are worried about fan support of him if Cincy were to win a game or two. By Cincy missing the tourney, it helps them get rid of what they consider a cancer to the school. I have no way of knowing if this has any validity, and also not sure if a magic bullet was involved.

[ejacobson]

Conspiracy Theory?= I like it, and I am not one who is usually into conspiracies because well they are usually made to complex and fall apart

Deace?= Never heard or met the man, but I like the theory, so I may like his show

Mikes Hard Lemonade?= Wow and I used to have such high respect for Reed and 2317. hehe, that stuff is too sugary to be drank in the quantities my fat butt needs to achieve my desired state of inebreaition, makes me sick as a dog.

[Matt Trump]

Mikes Hard Lemonade?= Wow and I used to have such high respect for Reed and 2317. hehe, that stuff is too sugary to be drank in the quantities my fat butt needs to achieve my desired state of inebreaition, makes me sick as a dog.

FYI, its 2317 and Gonzo that like the Mike's

[panther2317]

I can't drink it to get drunk...it's just a nice way to start off the tailgate/trip. I'm a Captain and Coke guy myself. (or Beam and Coke) But back to the theory!

[panther2317]

Here's what Jerry Palm had to say!

Now that I've had a night to almost sleep on it, I think the credibility of the selection process was significantly damaged in one important way and it's going to be hard to recover from it.
The committee has said all along, and I have believed them, that having a friend on the committee is not useful. I think most people agree that the three most questionable selections in this field are George Mason, Utah St and Air Force. George Mason's AD, Utah State's commissioner and an AD from Air Force's conference were all on the committee. Cincinnati, Missouri St and Creighton had no such help, while Florida State's non-conference schedule apparently was so poor that having a friend as the chairman wasn't enough.

For those of you who feel that conferences get bids and not teams, there's some evidence for you here as well, although much of it overlaps with the committee membership issue. The ACC got fewer bids than the lower-rated SEC and as many as the Missouri Valley, which is evidence against the "conferences get bids, not teams" theory, especially since both the ACC and SEC were represented on the committee. However, it appears the committee could not stomach rewarding Valley teams even more at the expense of their own interests.

Missouri St is criticized for going 4-7 vs other contenders in its own league. Would they be in if they had beaten Wichita St once, but lost to Evansville? The Bears were criticized for their non-conference schedule (in the media, not by the committee), but played at 8-seed Arkansas (lost by four) and won at 11-seed UW-Milwaukee in February. Air Force was praised by committee chairman Craig Littlepage for having beaten two non-tournament ACC teams (Miami in Seattle and Georgia Tech at home) and - I am not making this up - Northern Arizona, the regular season champion of the Big Sky. Missouri St didn't lose to the seventh place team in its league or anyone lower even once. Air Force lost to seventh place Wyoming twice, once to end the year. The profiles, the accomplishment, the smell test - it's not even close.

The question I haven't seen asked and I hope gets asked is why were George Mason and Creighton's roster issues apparently ignored? Those are things they supposedly consider. They said as much when talking about Villanova (they felt good about Allan Ray's status), GW (not so sure about Pops) and Cinci (left out based on performance w/o Kirkland - I can see that to some degree). Yet in George Mason and Creighton's cases, it seems to have been ignored. Once again, it's hard to chalk that up to anything except committee membership.

Littlepage talk about being proud of the "diversity" of the field. I never really did see what he meant by that, although he talked about how there was high-quality basketball being played all over the country. Maybe we got a couple of extra western teams in the name of diversity. Maybe the committee felt it necessary to support the stand George Mason took by suspending a key player, even if it might have cost them a bid. It almost sounds like we got the 34 most politically correct at-large teams instead of the 34 best. Any hopes the committee had of convincing people that their process is about selecting the 34 best at-large teams really suffered because of it.