Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Hoyas]

I don't see Richmond as a viable candidate until VCU fizzles out(or Richmond really pops). Even if they don't take VCU, I don't see the Big East wanting to be in a position where a new program is a clear cut #2 in their own city.

[paulxu]

2 RPI - BE - (6 bids, 60%) 33-17 (.660) - 7th place: 12 conf. losses, 8th place: 12 conf. losses

You need to lower the amount of conference losses by your 7th and 8th place teams to get more bids. By giving them an 11th place and 12th place team to beat.
But you need to raise your OOC win percentage, by making sure your new bottom teams win OOC.

This is why it’s Dayton (10-2 OOC) & Bona (7-4) fit perfectly. That’s .739 OOC between the two. You’re still the 2nd conference by RPI, but Dayton (9-9) and Seton Hall (now 8-10 or 9-9) get you more bids.

JP, I haven't claimed (as you well know from the other board) to have completely studied the math on all this; but I do trust your insights into how it works. Sometimes though I have a thought that maybe it's not as cut and dried as it may seem.

For example: if you added UD and Bona, and wanted to have Dayton be 9-9, assumedly most of their wins would come from teams below them to not upset the current 6 bids. Seton Hall had 12 loses. If they got 2 more wins from Bona, they are at 8-10. But the schedule would be reworked because you no longer play everyone twice, so I just think it would be very difficult. Not impossible (see Big 12) but tough.

I really do like the round robin; it's a rivalry of a different sort, getting to play everybody twice, H/H.

[Bill Marsh]

Half dozen years? maybe two 11 seeds in seasons (3 in 7) is winning to you but I read that as barely squeaking in the tournament 3 times and catching lightning in a bottle once. I agree they're the best out there now but still have work left to do before it's a match made in heaven like you seem to insinuate it is.

The problem with your dismissive "barely squeaking in the tournament" is that they were also a #4 seed one year (2003) and a #10 seed in another (2004). That's not barely squeaking in. And they validated their selection as a #11 seed in each of their last 3 bids by winning games in the tournament every time, not just one year. When a team wins games as an 11-seed, they're beating 6-seeds, i.e top 25 teams. They simply were not a token bid that went one and done.

What does 2003 and 2004 have to do with this? Your original post was "I doubt that it will take much more than what they've done over the last half dozen years" a half dozen years is 6 that's 09-10 to this past season. In that span they've been an 11 seed twice, one great run I'm happy for them it's a great start. And one time barely squeaking in getting to play at home in the NCAA tournament that's an insane advantage and I doubt they win that game without that advantage. You're suddenly bringing in years that you didn't mention and therefore I had no reason to address so come on stick to the argument you laid out initially. But anyways I have to say I laughed when you brought up being a 10 seed in 2004 as if it's so much better than being an 11.

I completely agree about what they bring in as far as assets go but that doesn't mean I think they're right for now. Wait 2 years if they continue on this path then I'd welcome them with open arms.

I post when I have free time, of which I didn't have much today. So, I was in a rush. Another poster was comparing Dayton with Creighton back to 2000, which is why I took this back that far. Sorry for running the 2 posts together in my mind.

As for the last 6 years, I was wrong. It was 7. Cut me some slack.

Nonetheless, Dayton won a least one game in each of the 3 seasons that they were a #11 seed, thereby validating the selection. Each. Time they beat a team from a power conference in the round of 64 - West Virginia (2009), Ohio State (2014), and Providence (2015), all of those were on neutral courts, not on their home court.

As for a 10 seed being better than an 11, I was responding to your point that an 11 seed is "barely making the tournament". An 11 is one of the 44 highest ranked teams in the tournament. If you stretch the concept of the bubble, you can legitimately count a #11 as "barely making it" - especially when they're in a play-in game as they were this year. But there is no way to claim that a 10 is "barely" making it. A 10 is one of the top 40 teams and is solidly in the field, not close to the bubble. That's why I included 2004 with their 4-seed in 2003.

I have no idea why you're trying to disparage their accomplishments in the first place. Do we do that to any other tournament teams? They've had a nice run over the past 7 years.

I have no problem with them being "not right for right now." As I said in one of my posts, there are legitimate reasons not to take them. I was just trying to balance the onslaught of negatives about them, which is way out of balance to what they are. Big East expansion is not my decision. It's only being discussed because people representing BE schools have put it our there in the first place. So, this is only a hypothetical with a big IF. For whatever the reasons not to take Dayton, I'm trying to figure out who are the powerhouses that the BE is going to take instead IF they do choose to expand. Gonzaga has been dismissed by many due to geography. VCU due to being public. Then who? Davidson? Richmond? Please. Who?

[Bill Marsh]

It strikes me that Dayton. Is every bit as qualified as Creighton was. Yes, Creighton was getting tournament bids, but what did they do when they got to the tournament? Not much.

Here's a more complete comparison of the 2 teams in the tournament since 2000 up to the time when they were BE candidates.

Creighton - 9 bids, 3 wins
Dayton - 6 bids, 6 wins

And Dayton wasn't beating also rans to get those 6 wins. They beat West Virginia, Ohio State, Stanford, Syracuse, Boise State, and Providence. Creighton had 3 more bids, but Dayton had 3 more wins

Bill, just a little clarity. When both Creighton and Dayton were "BE candidates" at the league restructuring, it was 2013.
At that point in time, Dayton had been to 3 NCAA's since 2000, and only had 1 win in those dozen years. Creighton clearly had a better track record. The wins you note in the last two years were after the candidates were selected.

It's 2015. If Dayton's a candidate, it's now or some time in the future. I was comparing how Dayton stacks up as a candidate now to what Creighton brought to the table when they were a candidate. Creighton was a great choice. If Dayton were chosen, I'd feel the same way about them.

[Bill Marsh]

2 RPI - BE - (6 bids, 60%) 33-17 (.660) - 7th place: 12 conf. losses, 8th place: 12 conf. losses

You need to lower the amount of conference losses by your 7th and 8th place teams to get more bids. By giving them an 11th place and 12th place team to beat.
But you need to raise your OOC win percentage, by making sure your new bottom teams win OOC.

This is why it’s Dayton (10-2 OOC) & Bona (7-4) fit perfectly. That’s .739 OOC between the two. You’re still the 2nd conference by RPI, but Dayton (9-9) and Seton Hall (now 8-10 or 9-9) get you more bids.

JP, I haven't claimed (as you well know from the other board) to have completely studied the math on all this; but I do trust your insights into how it works. Sometimes though I have a thought that maybe it's not as cut and dried as it may seem.

For example: if you added UD and Bona, and wanted to have Dayton be 9-9, assumedly most of their wins would come from teams below them to not upset the current 6 bids. Seton Hall had 12 loses. If they got 2 more wins from Bona, they are at 8-10. But the schedule would be reworked because you no longer play everyone twice, so I just think it would be very difficult. Not impossible (see Big 12) but tough.

I really do like the round robin; it's a rivalry of a different sort, getting to play everybody twice, H/H.

Trust me his math doesn't work for Bonaventure. He acknowledges that OOC must improve. The Bonnie's would do just the opposite.

[RDriesenUD]

Then you have your answer, don't you. No one cares about dated accomplishments. If anyone cared about dated accomplishments, wouldn't UD already be in the Big East?

Xavier's resume does blow Dayton's resume out of the water. It blows it out of the water with respect to the NCAA Tournament as it is presently configured - call it the modern era with at least 64 teams competing in it. Beyond that, it blows UD away in head-to-head competition in that same time frame. And Xavier was primarily responsible for the A10's financial success and exposure during its last 10 years or so in it, while UD bumbled its way to anointing itself pre-season champion about every year on its way to racking up a .500 conference performance.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem based upon what the Marquette fan wrote. You simply have a comprehension problem.

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I love how our success has either been too recent or too long ago. So, what you are saying is we have been good for a long time, right?

[Hoyas]

I think 10 years is about the limit in the recent history department.

So looking at Creighton 2004-13 and Dayton 2006-15- both 10 seasons...
Dayton- 3 bids, 6 wins, all 3 11 seeds.
Creighton- 4 bids, 2 wins, 7,8,10,10 seeds.

So in some ways Dayton better.

However- for Dayton the problem is the decision was done 2 years ago. If Dayton had done in 12 and 13 what they've done in 14 and 15, things probably are a whole lot different right now.

If the president's decide they want no expansion, Dayton could roll off 5 sweet 16's in a row, and it wouldn't change things. Also even with them wanting to expand- there has to be a viable #12, and right now sorry, SLU isn't a viable option at all at the moment. Richmond or Davidson isn't a viable option at the moment. VCU not an option. So there is that as well.

[RDriesenUD]

I know I didn't say which matters more. To me this X fan underrated history and to me the Dayton fans that I've dealt with are still stuck in 65-70. All I was doing with my post was trying to show that the overall body of work was on the lower end of the Big East and given that I do not think that Dayton is a fit at this moment in time.

Like I said Dayton is the best available option but that doesn't mean we should force them to fit. If Archie goes then you're in the cellar of mediocrity again, look what happened to MU after Buzz and we had 7 top 100 guys. Now I will say if Dayton strings 2-3 more years of this success and Archie doesn't leave I'll gladly eat my words and be all in for Dayton. In the same sense Id take Davidson as well if they continue to be good in the A10. To your SLU point Ill never understand the obsession with them. They don't have nostalgic tradition, they've been good but not great for a few years, they bring a new market but not exactly a gigantic one that offsets the negatives.

I'd love to know what you think of some of the other teams in the Big East if you think what Dayton has been for pretty much their entire history (other than the past 2 years) is mediocre. I don't expect Archie to leave any time soon, but if he does, trust me, we will not be mediocre and we will hire a good coach.

[Bill Marsh]

I think 10 years is about the limit in the recent history department.

So looking at Creighton 2004-13 and Dayton 2006-15- both 10 seasons...
Dayton- 3 bids, 6 wins, all 3 11 seeds.
Creighton- 4 bids, 2 wins, 7,8,10,10 seeds.

So in some ways Dayton better.

However- for Dayton the problem is the decision was done 2 years ago. If Dayton had done in 12 and 13 what they've done in 14 and 15, things probably are a whole lot different right now.

If the president's decide they want no expansion, Dayton could roll off 5 sweet 16's in a row, and it wouldn't change things. Also even with them wanting to expand- there has to be a viable #12, and right now sorry, SLU isn't a viable option at all at the moment. Richmond or Davidson isn't a viable option at the moment. VCU not an option. So there is that as well.

Good post.

Are schools like Davidson (1800 undergrads/3700 attendance) or Richmond (2900 undergrads/6100 attendance) ever really an option in a world where viability at this level depends on TV money, ratings, and attendance?

[MUBoxer]

I post when I have free time, of which I didn't have much today. So, I was in a rush. Another poster was comparing Dayton with Creighton back to 2000, which is why I took this back that far. Sorry for running the 2 posts together in my mind.

As for the last 6 years, I was wrong. It was 7. Cut me some slack.

Nonetheless, Dayton won a least one game in each of the 3 seasons that they were a #11 seed, thereby validating the selection. Each. Time they beat a team from a power conference in the round of 64 - West Virginia (2009), Ohio State (2014), and Providence (2015), all of those were on neutral courts, not on their home court.

As for a 10 seed being better than an 11, I was responding to your point that an 11 seed is "barely making the tournament". An 11 is one of the 44 highest ranked teams in the tournament. If you stretch the concept of the bubble, you can legitimately count a #11 as "barely making it" - especially when they're in a play-in game as they were this year. But there is no way to claim that a 10 is "barely" making it. A 10 is one of the top 40 teams and is solidly in the field, not close to the bubble. That's why I included 2004 with their 4-seed in 2003.

I have no idea why you're trying to disparage their accomplishments in the first place. Do we do that to any other tournament teams? They've had a nice run over the past 7 years.

I have no problem with them being "not right for right now." As I said in one of my posts, there are legitimate reasons not to take them. I was just trying to balance the onslaught of negatives about them, which is way out of balance to what they are. Big East expansion is not my decision. It's only being discussed because people representing BE schools have put it our there in the first place. For whatever the reasons not to take Dayton, I'm trying to figure out who are the powerhouses that the BE is going to take instead. Gonzaga has been dismissed due to geography. VCU due to being public. Who? Davidson? Richmond? Please. Who?

7 is fair, perhaps I'm just spoiled because the standard I use for good is what MU, GT, X, and Nova put together in that time since 2000, or even in the last 7 years.

That's great they beat a power conference team, 90% of the tournament is about matchups, that Boise State team likely wins on a neutral court, then Providence advances and we're talking about Providence returning to glory and Dayton choking. That's why with them being 11 seeded means a lot to me about the type of year they were having. Also the lowest seeds are usually reserved for mid majors so being seeded 11 or 10 from a conference like the A10 (as it was back then) is barely making it in. Marquette was seeded 11 in 2011 and made the S16, doesn't negate the fact we only went 9-9 in the old BE and barely squeaked in.

I'm not trying to disparage them, well not completely, I'm trying to show that they are at best a decent basketball school (tied for 27th most bids, 62 schools with more) and while they may be the best fit at this time, they don't fit great but could get there essentially there's no reason for us to call a rectangle a square. I'd personally love Davidson if they continue their recent success in the A10 plus they add the 24th biggest DMA to our map while Dayton is 64. If I was a decision maker I'd also talk to Belmont (Nashville DMA 29), not offer but get a finger on their future plan for the basketball program, and see if what they said was intriguing enough to stall an expansion to see the plan in execution. Before anyone goes crazy that I suggested that they've been D1 less time than I've been alive and yet have 7 ncaa appearances already with a couple NITs, I think they'll be the next Gonzaga.