Tulane Could and Should Be Just Fine

[nawlinspete]

It continues to hold true: Winning athletics benefits the university from Athletics through Zoology in innumerable ways. Including alumnus and alumna donations.

It is a shame every Tulane leader since Dufus Rufus de-emphasized in 1949 has refused to make the connection.

President Fitts, read today's ESPN article... "...before Gonzaga embarked on its original Cinderella run in 1999 the university was hurting financially. Now the Bulldogs and the school are just fine...."

President Fitts, do not become another Dufus, Longenecker, Yard, Cowen or Dickson....

[galvezwave]

i have wondered about Tulane going the gonzaga route. Build a major arena hire a great young coach and pour the resources to it. It would have been a good model for Tulane. The key? Football . If we're all honest, Tulane has been pissing money away on football for a very long time. Most of you guys don't want a program like Houston that would "devalue your degree " whatever the hell that means . Don't have affiliations and money to be Stanford. So what are we doing? You look at gonzaga and think about not wasting so much energy on a sport you can't be great at anyway. I bet those are some proud alums. Wouldn't it be nice .

[Aberzombie1892]

It continues to hold true: Winning athletics benefits the university from Athletics through Zoology in innumerable ways. Including alumnus and alumna donations.

It is a shame every Tulane leader since Dufus Rufus de-emphasized in 1949 has refused to make the connection.

President Fitts, read today's ESPN article... "...before Gonzaga embarked on its original Cinderella run in 1999 the university was hurting financially. Now the Bulldogs and the school are just fine...."

President Fitts, do not become another Dufus, Longenecker, Yard, Cowen or Dickson....

It's -way- more complicated than that. For a team like Tulane to make the NCAA tournament, it would have to either (1) win the conference tournament or (2) only lose about 6 or fewer games and have some good top 50 wins. Glancing at the midmajors, Memphis, Houston, and quite a few other midmajor basketball conference teams were left out the NCAA tournament because they didn't accomplish either of those feats. Tulane could improve dramatically and still be left out of the NCAAs since it plays in the AAC and not the ACC, Big 12, or Big East.

As for Tulane athletics in general, it doesn't have (1) state support for elite athletics the way that public universities do, (2) have a student body that really cares about athletics, or (3) have weak enough academics that money can be rerouted from academics to athletics without it having a negative effect on academics (although Tulane academics seem to be sliding as is).

[DfromCT]

It's -way- more complicated than that. For a team like Tulane to make the NCAA tournament, it would have to either (1) win the conference tournament or (2) only lose about 6 or fewer games and have some good top 50 wins. Glancing at the midmajors, Memphis, Houston, and quite a few other midmajor basketball conference teams were left out the NCAA tournament because they didn't accomplish either of those feats. Tulane could improve dramatically and still be left out of the NCAAs since it plays in the AAC and not the ACC, Big 12, or Big East.

As for Tulane athletics in general, it doesn't have (1) state support for elite athletics the way that public universities do, (2) have a student body that really cares about athletics, or (3) have weak enough academics that money can be rerouted from academics to athletics without it having a negative effect on academics (although Tulane academics seem to be sliding as is).

If Tulane were to improve in basketball to the point of being considered for the NCAA tournament, the whole conference would have to get back to where it was just a couple of years ago. It's not nearly as difficult as you project. There's plenty of room and desire on the part of UConn, Memphis, Houston and virtually every school (including Wichita State, if added) to make this conference a 4 or more bid league. And these things change SEASON TO SEASON. The first year after the Big East/AAC split, the AAC was the stronger basketball conference of the two. That changed the following year, and they've blown the AAC away since then. But it can and does change year to year.

Where do you see Tulane academics sliding? We're now 39th in the USN&WR rankings (the only rankings that matter.) That's up from mid 50's just a few years ago.

[winwave]

While things certainly can change from one year to the next the fact is that the further away the AAC has gotten from its BE days the lesser a conference it has become. I said that's what was going to happen when this conference got formed and it has played out that way. These teams are no longer recruiting to the BE and no longer have players from those BE days and it shows. I hope it changes for the better but it's not going to be easy.

[Aberzombie1892]

It's -way- more complicated than that. For a team like Tulane to make the NCAA tournament, it would have to either (1) win the conference tournament or (2) only lose about 6 or fewer games and have some good top 50 wins. Glancing at the midmajors, Memphis, Houston, and quite a few other midmajor basketball conference teams were left out the NCAA tournament because they didn't accomplish either of those feats. Tulane could improve dramatically and still be left out of the NCAAs since it plays in the AAC and not the ACC, Big 12, or Big East.

As for Tulane athletics in general, it doesn't have (1) state support for elite athletics the way that public universities do, (2) have a student body that really cares about athletics, or (3) have weak enough academics that money can be rerouted from academics to athletics without it having a negative effect on academics (although Tulane academics seem to be sliding as is).

If Tulane were to improve in basketball to the point of being considered for the NCAA tournament, the whole conference would have to get back to where it was just a couple of years ago. It's not nearly as difficult as you project. There's plenty of room and desire on the part of UConn, Memphis, Houston and virtually every school (including Wichita State, if added) to make this conference a 4 or more bid league. And these things change SEASON TO SEASON. The first year after the Big East/AAC split, the AAC was the stronger basketball conference of the two. That changed the following year, and they've blown the AAC away since then. But it can and does change year to year.

Where do you see Tulane academics sliding? We're now 39th in the USN&WR rankings (the only rankings that matter.) That's up from mid 50's just a few years ago.

As for the academics, the Law School (outside top 50), MBA program (outside top 70), and the Medical School (unranked), along with virtually all areas generally being ranked in the 70-120 range aside from Public Health, Healthcare Administration and Social Work. It's true that Tulane hasn't filled out the Med School survey since the late 1990s, but the university fired 200+ employees of the medical school after Katrina (not including faculty that left voluntarily), so, either way, it's not the same Med School that was once ranked in the top 10 overall.

The fact that SMU was a 6 seed with a 30-4 record -and- won the AAC tournament says everything that needs to be said concerning the AAC tournament. Imagine where SMU would have been seeded if it lost to Cincinnati in the championship game of the tournament - 10? 11? Worse?

The AAC is significantly behind the other conferences in regard to the NCAA tournament if for no other reason that the ACC, Big 12, and Big East realized that the best way to get teams into the tournament is to have as many teams in your conference play elite basketball as possible (for RPI reasons). While that's certainly obvious that a so-so team can benefit from playing an elite conference schedule by building a fantastic RPI, paying elite salaries, building elite facilities, having elite brands, and enjoying elite exposure help those conferences achieve that, and, because they do achieve that, teams in the middle/bottom of the conference can and are selected for the NCAA tournament on a regular basis over (in my opinion) more deserving midmajor teams.

The AAC could attempt to improve its lot by adding Wichita State, but what if that experiment doesn't work out? The AAC is a tougher conference than the Missouri Valley conference, so Wichita State may not be able to regularly win the conference tournament or land in the top 2 in the conference in the regular season the way that it can now (AAC RPI conference rank 7/Missouri Valley RPI conference rank 12). If it's not a NCAA tournament staple in the AAC, would it still be worth adding?

While things certainly can change from one year to the next the fact is that the further away the AAC has gotten from its BE days the lesser a conference it has become. I said that's what was going to happen when this conference got formed and it has played out that way. These teams are no longer recruiting to the BE and no longer have players from those BE days. and it shows. I hope it changes for the better but it's not going to be easy.

I agree.

[Show Me]

It's -way- more complicated than that. For a team like Tulane to make the NCAA tournament, it would have to either (1) win the conference tournament or (2) only lose about 6 or fewer games and have some good top 50 wins. Glancing at the midmajors, Memphis, Houston, and quite a few other midmajor basketball conference teams were left out the NCAA tournament because they didn't accomplish either of those feats. Tulane could improve dramatically and still be left out of the NCAAs since it plays in the AAC and not the ACC, Big 12, or Big East.

As for Tulane athletics in general, it doesn't have (1) state support for elite athletics the way that public universities do, (2) have a student body that really cares about athletics, or (3) have weak enough academics that money can be rerouted from academics to athletics without it having a negative effect on academics (although Tulane academics seem to be sliding as is).

If Tulane were to improve in basketball to the point of being considered for the NCAA tournament, the whole conference would have to get back to where it was just a couple of years ago. It's not nearly as difficult as you project. There's plenty of room and desire on the part of UConn, Memphis, Houston and virtually every school (including Wichita State, if added) to make this conference a 4 or more bid league. And these things change SEASON TO SEASON. The first year after the Big East/AAC split, the AAC was the stronger basketball conference of the two. That changed the following year, and they've blown the AAC away since then. But it can and does change year to year.

Where do you see Tulane academics sliding? We're now 39th in the USN&WR rankings (the only rankings that matter.) That's up from mid 50's just a few years ago.

As for the academics, the Law School (outside top 50), MBA program (outside top 70), and the Medical School (unranked), along with virtually all areas generally being ranked in the 70-120 range aside from Public Health, Healthcare Administration and Social Work. It's true that Tulane hasn't filled out the Med School survey since the late 1990s, but the university fired 200+ employees of the medical school after Katrina (not including faculty that left voluntarily), so, either way, it's not the same Med School that was once ranked in the top 10 overall.

The fact that SMU was a 6 seed with a 30-4 record -and- won the AAC tournament says everything that needs to be said concerning the AAC tournament. Imagine where SMU would have been seeded if it lost to Cincinnati in the championship game of the tournament - 10? 11? Worse?

The AAC is significantly behind the other conferences in regard to the NCAA tournament if for no other reason that the ACC, Big 12, and Big East realized that the best way to get teams into the tournament is to have as many teams in your conference play elite basketball as possible (for RPI reasons). While that's certainly obvious that a so-so team can benefit from playing an elite conference schedule by building a fantastic RPI, paying elite salaries, building elite facilities, having elite brands, and enjoying elite exposure help those conferences achieve that, and, because they do achieve that, teams in the middle/bottom of the conference can and are selected for the NCAA tournament on a regular basis over (in my opinion) more deserving midmajor teams.

The AAC could attempt to improve its lot by adding Wichita State, but what if that experiment doesn't work out? The AAC is a tougher conference than the Missouri Valley conference, so Wichita State may not be able to regularly win the conference tournament or land in the top 2 in the conference in the regular season the way that it can now (AAC RPI conference rank 7/Missouri Valley RPI conference rank 12). If it's not a NCAA tournament staple in the AAC, would it still be worth adding?

While things certainly can change from one year to the next the fact is that the further away the AAC has gotten from its BE days the lesser a conference it has become. I said that's what was going to happen when this conference got formed and it has played out that way. These teams are no longer recruiting to the BE and no longer have players from those BE days. and it shows. I hope it changes for the better but it's not going to be easy.

I agree.

You're seeing P6 bias now in basketball. UNO going to be in a better position to go to the tourney than us by winning their conference's auto bid every year.

[winwave]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

[RobertM320]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

Maybe not specifically as far as the AAC, but there's no doubt the P5(6) bias has come to basketball now. That's why they're taking a 7th and 8th place team from a P6 conference over a solid second place team in a non-P5. We're lucky we got two teams in. The majority of other mid majors are basically in "win the conference or play in the NIT" mode.

[Aberzombie1892]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

Maybe not specifically as far as the AAC, but there's no doubt the P5(6) bias has come to basketball now. That's why they're taking a 7th and 8th place team from a P6 conference over a solid second place team in a non-P5. We're lucky we got two teams in. The majority of other mid majors are basically in "win the conference or play in the NIT" mode.

Part of it is bias, but part of it is the fortune of P6s playing elite conference schedules that help even so-so P6 teams build great RPI resumes even if they rarely beat the best teams in their conference (this was prevalent in the ACC this year). The key is building an elite conference for basketball, and the key to that is paying coaches tons of money. The Big East realized that when they broke off into their own conference - sure their payouts will never be P5 football level, but they can afford to buy good basketball coaches and they don't have to worry about spending a ton of money on football or being treated as second tier within their own conference by football programs or even have to worry about being associated with bad basketball programs just because they have a good football program attached to them.

[winwave]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

Maybe not specifically as far as the AAC, but there's no doubt the P5(6) bias has come to basketball now. That's why they're taking a 7th and 8th place team from a P6 conference over a solid second place team in a non-P5. We're lucky we got two teams in. The majority of other mid majors are basically in "win the conference or play in the NIT" mode.

Well clearly I was specifically talking about the AAC. As for the other non P5's I know people want to believe the bias is there when they feel their conference gets slighted but I just don't think a 2nd place Southland team is worthy most years.

[Wave755]

i have wondered about Tulane going the gonzaga route. Build a major arena hire a great young coach and pour the resources to it. It would have been a good model for Tulane. The key? Football . If we're all honest, Tulane has been pissing money away on football for a very long time. Most of you guys don't want a program like Houston that would "devalue your degree " whatever the hell that means . Don't have affiliations and money to be Stanford. So what are we doing? You look at gonzaga and think about not wasting so much energy on a sport you can't be great at anyway. I bet those are some proud alums. Wouldn't it be nice .

How about better leadership for football for say having hired Lindy Infante in 1979 and RichRod in 1998? And, when they left, since nothing is forever, having then simply hired the best man for the job, rather than "low bid gets the job, Scelfo agreed to $350K a year"? Tulane has made no real investment in football for the last 50 years other than a stadium which for all practical purposes is without a West side.

In 1979 we had our chance to move up, and chose instead to hire a 47 year old coach with a long losing record, TPS's Dad for the last page of his book The Green Wave quotes a fan's disbelief for Hindman Wall's decision. In 1998 we had another chance to move up and instead decided upon Scelfo because he was "cheap," 350K a year, and promised to "stay."

Under different leadership we could easily be where TCU is for today for athletics, Tulane's resources are greater than those of TCU and Tulane's academic reputation is far superior to that of the Horned Frogs.

I believe Michael Fitts, a Philly guy, would have hired Infante in 1979 and RR in 1998, and has already proven, unlike Cowen, he holds no "philosophical objection" to paying a competitive salary for our football coach.

[RobertM320]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

Maybe not specifically as far as the AAC, but there's no doubt the P5(6) bias has come to basketball now. That's why they're taking a 7th and 8th place team from a P6 conference over a solid second place team in a non-P5. We're lucky we got two teams in. The majority of other mid majors are basically in "win the conference or play in the NIT" mode.

Well clearly I was specifically talking about the AAC. As for the other non P5's I know people want to believe the bias is there when they feel their conference gets slighted but I just don't think a 2nd place Southland team is worthy most years.

Didn't say most years. And I doubt a 2nd place Southland team is ever worthy. As for RPI, if a team goes 10-22 in the ACC, I guess they should still got to the Dance since "ooh, they have an RPI of 26" because they played nothing but the Dukes, UNCs and Kansases of the world? Give me a Wichita State or a George Mason that has a 30-3 season but gets upset in their Conf Tournament, over a 15-14 8th place SEC school.

[winwave]

I don't see it as bias when it comes to the AAC. The conference just isn't all that. I hope UNO has turned a corner as I enjoy that rivalry when both of us are good but they lose a lot of seniors off that team. I doubt they go back any time soon.

Maybe not specifically as far as the AAC, but there's no doubt the P5(6) bias has come to basketball now. That's why they're taking a 7th and 8th place team from a P6 conference over a solid second place team in a non-P5. We're lucky we got two teams in. The majority of other mid majors are basically in "win the conference or play in the NIT" mode.

Well clearly I was specifically talking about the AAC. As for the other non P5's I know people want to believe the bias is there when they feel their conference gets slighted but I just don't think a 2nd place Southland team is worthy most years.

Didn't say most years. And I doubt a 2nd place Southland team is ever worthy. As for RPI, if a team goes 10-22 in the ACC, I guess they should still got to the Dance since "ooh, they have an RPI of 26" because they played nothing but the Dukes, UNCs and Kansases of the world? Give me a Wichita State or a George Mason that has a 30-3 season but gets upset in their Conf Tournament, over a 15-14 8th place SEC school.

Strawman argument. I never said to put in a 10-22 team and no such team got put in. I get the anger towards the P5 but keep it real. I and most would rather see an 8th place ACC team in rather than a 2nd place team from a fringe conference. If Wichita St. or GM had those kind of seasons they would get in. Only 5 SEC teams got in.

[RobertM320]

Why would you rather see a 9th place ACC team? Just because of name recognition? 24-9 Valparaiso finished tied for first in the Horizon League, but lost in their tournament. You don't think they'd have had a legitimate chance against a 19-14 Wake Forest team, who finished 9th in the ACC?

Basically, you're a part of the problem. These schools deserve a shot, just as much if not more than an average P5 school, especially when you consider what they accomplished with a fraction of the money. But people like you are exactly the reason there's such a P5 bias. "I don't recognize the school, so they mustn't be crap." Maybe you need to find another school to support, because the more people with that attitude, the less likely it is that Tulane EVER gets a shot at anything.

[winwave]

Why would you rather see a 9th place ACC team? Just because of name recognition? 24-9 Valparaiso finished tied for first in the Horizon League, but lost in their tournament. You don't think they'd have had a legitimate chance against a 19-14 Wake Forest team, who finished 9th in the ACC?

Basically, you're a part of the problem. These schools deserve a shot, just as much if not more than an average P5 school, especially when you consider what they accomplished with a fraction of the money. But people like you are exactly the reason there's such a P5 bias. "I don't recognize the school, so they mustn't be crap." Maybe you need to find another school to support, because the more people with that attitude, the less likely it is that Tulane EVER gets a shot at anything.

Quite the overreaction there. You've really lost it here. I'll leave it at we'l have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

[RobertM320]

winwave, you really feel that a 9th place ACC school deserves a spot in the NCAA tournament over a team with a 24-9 record, tied for first in their conference, especially one like Valpo that has some history of going to the tournament? Its hardly over reaction to say that if more people develop the same attitude, especially future members of the Selection Committee, we'll eventually see the day that all of the NCAA tournament will be P6 schools and a few top level conference champs, because no one will give any credence to a "mid-major", no matter how successful. We'll never have any more Butlers, Gonzagas, etc. at that point.

[DfromCT]

There should be a threshold, such as finishing over .500 in conference, or in the top half of your conference, to limit the teams from any one conference.

The problem is that there really are only 8-10 true "at large" bids out there. There's 32 automatic bids then there's another 20-25 or so that are ranked teams or teams with really high RPI, that failed to win their conference tournament, but are in anyway. "The Committee" says they look at RPI, SoS, who was hot coming down the stretch, etc. I think there's more politics than they admit, and yes there's a bias towards the "known" teams. I do think that some mid-major leagues get multiple bids, though the Horizon didn't this year. Valpo is a known name, surprised they didn't get in. That's not a great conference, though, like say the A-10. Rhode Island was the hottest team in the A-10 conference coming down the stretch, and the only team with a win against ranked competition. Yet had they not won their tournament, they would have been left out.

I like that they now are making some of the at large P6 bids play-in and become 10 - 12 seeds. It was bogus that they used to make the winners of lesser conferences play-in and then face the #1 seed.

And to clarify, in basketball when you say P6, I assume you mean the P5 + Big East?

[greenphantom]

Why would you rather see a 9th place ACC team? Just because of name recognition? 24-9 Valparaiso finished tied for first in the Horizon League, but lost in their tournament. You don't think they'd have had a legitimate chance against a 19-14 Wake Forest team, who finished 9th in the ACC?

Basically, you're a part of the problem. These schools deserve a shot, just as much if not more than an average P5 school, especially when you consider what they accomplished with a fraction of the money. But people like you are exactly the reason there's such a P5 bias. "I don't recognize the school, so they mustn't be crap." Maybe you need to find another school to support, because the more people with that attitude, the less likely it is that Tulane EVER gets a shot at anything.

+1. I'm over seeing 18-14 teams make the tourney cause they play in the ACC. They should limit conferences to no more than 6 teams getting in.

[winwave]

winwave, you really feel that a 9th place ACC school deserves a spot in the NCAA tournament over a team with a 24-9 record, tied for first in their conference, especially one like Valpo that has some history of going to the tournament? Its hardly over reaction to say that if more people develop the same attitude, especially future members of the Selection Committee, we'll eventually see the day that all of the NCAA tournament will be P6 schools and a few top level conference champs, because no one will give any credence to a "mid-major", no matter how successful. We'll never have any more Butlers, Gonzagas, etc. at that point.

You do realize that the best 68 teams in the country don't get in? There are teams that get in no matter whether they are worthy or not just b/c they win a conference. I was very happy for the UNO team and it's fans to get that experience but truth be told they weren't worthy. I have standards. You believe everybody should get a trophy. That makes you part of Tulane's problem. You want something then earn it. The NCAA tournament is already set up to satisfy the likes of you. Quit bitching.

BTW, WF had an RPI of 43. Valpo was 78.

[RobertM320]

And to clarify, in basketball when you say P6, I assume you mean the P5 + Big East?

Yes, that was my reference. In MBB, Big East is a power conference.

[RobertM320]

winwave, you really feel that a 9th place ACC school deserves a spot in the NCAA tournament over a team with a 24-9 record, tied for first in their conference, especially one like Valpo that has some history of going to the tournament? Its hardly over reaction to say that if more people develop the same attitude, especially future members of the Selection Committee, we'll eventually see the day that all of the NCAA tournament will be P6 schools and a few top level conference champs, because no one will give any credence to a "mid-major", no matter how successful. We'll never have any more Butlers, Gonzagas, etc. at that point.

You do realize that the best 68 teams in the country don't get in? There are teams that get in no matter whether they are worthy or not just b/c they win a conference. I was very happy for the UNO team and it's fans to get that experience but truth be told they weren't worthy. I have standards. You believe everybody should get a trophy. That makes you part of Tulane's problem. You want something then earn it. The NCAA tournament is already set up to satisfy the likes of you. Quit bitching.

BTW, WF had an RPI of 43. Valpo was 78.

The last thing I want is for everyone to GET a trophy. But yes, I do thing everyone deserves THE CHANCE to get a trophy.

As for RPI, as we saw in baseball last season, RPI is greatly inflated if you're in a power conference. Look how many SEC schools started with super high RPIs to begin with, which means they stay high because they play each other most of the season. Then get to the Regionals, and only one team makes the CWS, in spite of the fact that EVERY SEC school played EVERY game in the Regionals and Super Regionals on their home field. Yes, they hosted every Regional and SR they were in. So that 43 to 78 comparison isn't enough to justify keeping a 24-9 team out, and putting an 18-14 team in.

[winwave]

winwave, you really feel that a 9th place ACC school deserves a spot in the NCAA tournament over a team with a 24-9 record, tied for first in their conference, especially one like Valpo that has some history of going to the tournament? Its hardly over reaction to say that if more people develop the same attitude, especially future members of the Selection Committee, we'll eventually see the day that all of the NCAA tournament will be P6 schools and a few top level conference champs, because no one will give any credence to a "mid-major", no matter how successful. We'll never have any more Butlers, Gonzagas, etc. at that point.

You do realize that the best 68 teams in the country don't get in? There are teams that get in no matter whether they are worthy or not just b/c they win a conference. I was very happy for the UNO team and it's fans to get that experience but truth be told they weren't worthy. I have standards. You believe everybody should get a trophy. That makes you part of Tulane's problem. You want something then earn it. The NCAA tournament is already set up to satisfy the likes of you. Quit bitching.

BTW, WF had an RPI of 43. Valpo was 78.

The last thing I want is for everyone to GET a trophy. But yes, I do thing everyone deserves THE CHANCE to get a trophy.

As for RPI, as we saw in baseball last season, RPI is greatly inflated if you're in a power conference. Look how many SEC schools started with super high RPIs to begin with, which means they stay high because they play each other most of the season. Then get to the Regionals, and only one team makes the CWS, in spite of the fact that EVERY SEC school played EVERY game in the Regionals and Super Regionals on their home field. Yes, they hosted every Regional and SR they were in. So that 43 to 78 comparison isn't enough to justify keeping a 24-9 team out, and putting an 18-14 team in.

Again that tournament doesn't get the best 64. It allows in teams that win very low level conferences. so you should be happy. Last year things turned out that way but there have been years where many advanced from the power conferences.

As for saying everyone deserves a chance then you want the tournament expanded to 299 teams.

[DfromCT]

The baseball tournament and the basketball tournament are two different animals. The baseball tournament is run in a ridiculous way. All season long teams play three game weekend series, then in the NCAA tournament they change entirely to a four team double elimination format. Why the change? They should have 32 weekend 3 game series and then 16 the following week. It will be MUCH better for the pitchers, and have 32, then 16 weekend series played on campus of the higher seeds. It would also be better for attendance. The winners of weekend 2 go to the CWS. Although there is some bias to the baseball tournament, you still get a whole lot of teams nobody has heard of (can you say Coastal Carolina or Dallas Baptist?) in. Yes, the SEC and ACC got a bunch of teams in, and the pre-season RPI skewers things. There should be no pre-season RPI or ranking of any kind in any sport.

With basketball, there's 351 teams playing D1, so roughly 1 out of 6 make it to the tournament. While admitting to a P6 bias, I still think they do a pretty good job of getting the field right. And if your SoS is low, you must win the conference tournament, that's what makes the lower leagues (like the Horizon that are probably only sending one team) tournaments so exciting. Either schedule a few games against top P6 programs, or keep your fingers crossed that you're going to win your conference tournament if your a low level D1 hoops program.

I personally would rather see an 18-14 ACC team if they're over .500 in the conference than a runner up from the Horizon league that lost 5 less games, but played nobody in the top 50.

[winwave]

Interesting concept on the baseball tourney. I'd like to see that get some traction.