francis wrote:We need a mathematician or an actuary that frequents this board to make the following determination
Take the top 10 basketball conferences and the schools that comprise these conferences and determine the optimum number of members in a imaginary conference with the goal to maximize the number of NCAA Tornament bids for this imaginary conference. Consider the low number of teams in the conference to be 10 and the max to be 18. Consider that the average W/L of the members in this imaginary conference to hbe the same as the avergage recorde of these 10 conferences.
This is the only way to find out if 10 members is better or worse than a higher number. Please lets not hear about the "fun" of having a "round robin", keep this argument out of the findings.
Any math majors here?
notkirkcameron wrote:francis wrote:We need a mathematician or an actuary that frequents this board to make the following determination
Take the top 10 basketball conferences and the schools that comprise these conferences and determine the optimum number of members in a imaginary conference with the goal to maximize the number of NCAA Tornament bids for this imaginary conference. Consider the low number of teams in the conference to be 10 and the max to be 18. Consider that the average W/L of the members in this imaginary conference to hbe the same as the avergage recorde of these 10 conferences.
This is the only way to find out if 10 members is better or worse than a higher number. Please lets not hear about the "fun" of having a "round robin", keep this argument out of the findings.
Any math majors here?
Long thread short: The number and analysis you are looking for doesn't exist. Asking what number is optimal for securing NCAA Tournament berths is like debating which of the Seven Dwarfs would be the best unicorn trainer. It might be entertaining and we can spill a lot of pixels but it's ultimately not the point because there is no right answer.
Any analysis necessarily involves not only the number of teams, but WHO the teams are. For example:
The 2013 Big East had 15 teams. It got 8 into the tournament.
The 2014 ACC had 15 members. It got 6 into the tournament.
The 2014 Big East had 10 teams. It got 4 into the tournament.
The 2014 Big XII had 10 teams. It got 7 into the tournament.
In the latter example, the Big 12's 7th team in was Oklahoma State, who finished with a record of 21-13 and actually had a losing record in conference, but they dominated their nonconference slate. The Big East's 7th-place team was Georgetown, who also finished with a sub-.500 conference record, but went 17-13 overall, and in their non-conference, lost to Northeastern. In conference, they lost to Seton Hall twice....and lost to DePaul in the Big East Tournament.
In short, despite having similar conference records in a league with an identical scheduling format and number of teams, the "7th" team in the Big 12 was a tournament team and the "7th" team in the Big East wasn't. The difference? One cleaned up in nonconference, and only lost one game in league play to a team who didn't go to the tournament. The other lost to freaking Northeastern, and followed it up after New Year's by losing three combined games to Seton Hall and DePaul (Not to mention also losing to St. John's, and Marquette (twice); neither of whom made the tournament. The 2014 Atlantic Sun had 10 teams. It got 1 into the tournament. It had nothing to do with the fact that the A-Sun had 10 teams or 12 or 8 or 14 or 9-and-a-half. It was because the A-Sun has 10 crap teams, and the NCAA was obligated to take one of them.
Conferences don't qualify for the tournament. Teams do.
FriarJ wrote:I ran these computations last night and the best number came out to a 10 team conference.
Your welcome!
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests