here's how Montana could get a higher seeding

[mondayamqb]

The selection committee would change to a random computerized bracketing system. The top 64 (68)teams would be chosen as they are now. The schools would then be entered into a computer--with only a geographical restriction to reduce travel costs and encourage regional rivalries. Record, rpi, conference, etc. would be ignored. The result would be a wide open, exciting tournament from the first game to the last; eliminating all biases and allowing the traditionally lower seeded mid-majors and smaller schools the occasional opportunity to play an opening round game against a team that isn't in the top twenty. Dream on.

[SoCalGriz]

I think that sort of system would have hurt us this year.
We were awarded a 13 due to winning 14 in a row, otherwise we would have been a 15.

[cclarkblues]

We had a good seed. I doubt we will next time.

[mondayamqb]

This year the West region would have been made up of: Baylor, BYU, California, Colorado, Colorado St., Gonzaga, Kansas, Kansas St., Long Beach St., Montana, New Mexico, New Mexico St., San Diego St., So.Dakota St., Texas, UNLV, and Wichita St. This system would work like a lottery. Any one of these teams could have been randomly matched by the computer with any other; regardless of conference, record, or rpi. Simply the luck of the draw. The first two go to the top line, next two second, and so forth.The top seeds would no longer win 80% of the first two rounds and-in some years-mid majors(like Montana)would have a chance to advance to the second round...or even the sweet sixteen. Much more interest and excitement.

[wbtfg]

Huh?




Seriously

[EverettGriz]

Huh?




Seriously

And that's not even the scotch talking there, huh wbt??

I think mondayqb posted a similar concept in another thread in which he flushed it out a little better, and likely thought he was in that thread again.

[mondayamqb]

Okay, I know I"m in trouble when it takes three posts to explain a concept. Promise, last one. Instead of the traditional seeding, think of doing it with a blind draw lottery. Under the system we have, a power team is always pitted a smaller school or weaker team in the first round...seeding. Montana will never get above a 12 seed. With a lottery system two smalls or two bigs could occasionally play each other. In some years we could play another mid-major in first round; win and possibly play the winner of another small vs.small (the luck of the draw)and have a realistic chance at being in the sweet 16. The drawback is that the power teams (follow the money) wouldn't want play another power and risk being out in the first round. Likewise, two multiple team conferences wouldn't want two of their members to play each other in the first round (follow the money). This system gives smaller schools a give chance to win a game or two and gain some momentum. Which would you prefer for Montana? One team would still have to win six games in a row to become champion.

[stubbins]

Okay, I know I"m in trouble when it takes three posts to explain a concept. Promise, last one. Instead of the traditional seeding, think of doing it with a blind draw lottery. Under the system we have, a power team is always pitted a smaller school or weaker team in the first round...seeding. Montana will never get above a 12 seed. With a lottery system two smalls or two bigs could occasionally play each other. In some years we could play another mid-major in first round; win and possibly play the winner of another small vs.small (the luck of the draw)and have a realistic chance at being in the sweet 16. The drawback is that the power teams (follow the money) wouldn't want play another power and risk being out in the first round. Likewise, two multiple team conferences wouldn't want two of their members to play each other in the first round (follow the money). This system gives smaller schools a give chance to win a game or two and gain some momentum. Which would you prefer for Montana? One team would still have to win six games in a row to become champion.

this will never happen....the big conferences want as many wins as possible. If the big east wins 8 of its first round games...that is something like 64 million dollars over the next 7 years for the conference. You can see how teams in a good conference can have a higher athletic budget. The MWC didn't have a very good showing this year, but they usually win at least two games a year in the tourney. You can see how that money adds up. After three years in a row with even just two wins a year for your conference...the money just becomes staggering.

Now imagine the acc or big east....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They would never give up some of that money by having to play another "power" in the first round.

[Hammer]

Montana will never get above a 12 seed.

I disagree. Win a game or two against good non conf opponents would help out a bunch. Why don't we play Gonzaga?? 200 miles away and I know a good Griz team could compete with them. I remember when Gonzaga was a nobody and then they had a great class and made an NCAA run and have been a force ever since. I also remember in the early 80's when Idaho made it into the top 10 and had a record of something like 27-2. it can be done just need to play better non conf teams and not get taken to the buzzer by the college of Great Falls and lose to N Dakota.

[moose/squirrel]

Okay, I know I"m in trouble when it takes three posts to explain a concept. Promise, last one. Instead of the traditional seeding, think of doing it with a blind draw lottery. Under the system we have, a power team is always pitted a smaller school or weaker team in the first round...seeding. Montana will never get above a 12 seed. With a lottery system two smalls or two bigs could occasionally play each other. In some years we could play another mid-major in first round; win and possibly play the winner of another small vs.small (the luck of the draw)and have a realistic chance at being in the sweet 16. The drawback is that the power teams (follow the money) wouldn't want play another power and risk being out in the first round. Likewise, two multiple team conferences wouldn't want two of their members to play each other in the first round (follow the money). This system gives smaller schools a give chance to win a game or two and gain some momentum. Which would you prefer for Montana? One team would still have to win six games in a row to become champion.

this will never happen....the big conferences want as many wins as possible. If the big east wins 8 of its first round games...that is something like 64 million dollars over the next 7 years for the conference. You can see how teams in a good conference can have a higher athletic budget. The MWC didn't have a very good showing this year, but they usually win at least two games a year in the tourney. You can see how that money adds up. After three years in a row with even just two wins a year for your conference...the money just becomes staggering.

Now imagine the acc or big east....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They would never give up some of that money by having to play another "power" in the first round.

I'd be curious where you got the numbers that you are submitting. Let's not forget that many involved in your conspiracy theory are heading home...please fill us in brochacho.

[moose/squirrel]

Okay, I know I"m in trouble when it takes three posts to explain a concept. Promise, last one. Instead of the traditional seeding, think of doing it with a blind draw lottery. Under the system we have, a power team is always pitted a smaller school or weaker team in the first round...seeding. Montana will never get above a 12 seed. With a lottery system two smalls or two bigs could occasionally play each other. In some years we could play another mid-major in first round; win and possibly play the winner of another small vs.small (the luck of the draw)and have a realistic chance at being in the sweet 16. The drawback is that the power teams (follow the money) wouldn't want play another power and risk being out in the first round. Likewise, two multiple team conferences wouldn't want two of their members to play each other in the first round (follow the money). This system gives smaller schools a give chance to win a game or two and gain some momentum. Which would you prefer for Montana? One team would still have to win six games in a row to become champion.

Pass and puff

[stubbins]

Okay, I know I"m in trouble when it takes three posts to explain a concept. Promise, last one. Instead of the traditional seeding, think of doing it with a blind draw lottery. Under the system we have, a power team is always pitted a smaller school or weaker team in the first round...seeding. Montana will never get above a 12 seed. With a lottery system two smalls or two bigs could occasionally play each other. In some years we could play another mid-major in first round; win and possibly play the winner of another small vs.small (the luck of the draw)and have a realistic chance at being in the sweet 16. The drawback is that the power teams (follow the money) wouldn't want play another power and risk being out in the first round. Likewise, two multiple team conferences wouldn't want two of their members to play each other in the first round (follow the money). This system gives smaller schools a give chance to win a game or two and gain some momentum. Which would you prefer for Montana? One team would still have to win six games in a row to become champion.

this will never happen....the big conferences want as many wins as possible. If the big east wins 8 of its first round games...that is something like 64 million dollars over the next 7 years for the conference. You can see how teams in a good conference can have a higher athletic budget. The MWC didn't have a very good showing this year, but they usually win at least two games a year in the tourney. You can see how that money adds up. After three years in a row with even just two wins a year for your conference...the money just becomes staggering.

Now imagine the acc or big east....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They would never give up some of that money by having to play another "power" in the first round.

I'd be curious where you got the numbers that you are submitting. Let's not forget that many involved in your conspiracy theory are heading home...please fill us in brochacho.

Don't know what a brochacho is....and I am not sure what conspiracy theory you speak of...and I don't know who else is involved in this conspiracy theory....but

I do know that the ncaa payed 180.5 million last year ALONE to teams. Some of this is travel money, so not all of that is just for winning, but a large chunk is...O'Day has said before that those winnings are payed out over 7 years(could be 6). That number varies for teams depending on how many are in each conference.

I would think you could see how year after year of multiple teams winning from a conference adds significantly to a school's budget.

As to the post I was addressing, why would a Kentucky take a chance of playing a Kansas in a year like this. The large conferences would lose out on a for sure win every year by doing this...and losing a large chunk of money when compounded over 7 (or 6) years. Is that the conspiracy theory you are addressing?

Not sure what you don't understand about this, so if I didn't answer the question, I apologize....

[mtgrizrule]

Add in no team is eligible for the NCAA tournament if they are below .500 in their own conference. I actually like this idea, and would certainly be much fairer, and take some politics out of the equation. Until the politicians can make NCAA athletics fairer for all NCAA members, it just won't happen. I am so sick of only the big time conferences getting the majority or money, and recognition.

[Paytonlives]

Play in a real conference with real opponents and the problem is solved....

[number1debater]

We could start by winning more games...losses to USF, OSU, and North Dakota...Not saying we could ever be a number 1, but certainly in the top half of the bracket if we were to have a 1 or 2 loss season. See Murray State