College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

The home for Big East hoops

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:17 am

stever20 wrote:Butler in at #26. So Big East with 3 left and presumably top 6 seeds, then 3 in the 7-10 range. That's where you see the impact of the round robin- extremely difficult if not impossible to get more than 3 teams as top 6 seeds(if you are getting 6+ teams in the tourney). Seeing it with Big 12 as well- they have 7 in, but only have 3 teams as well in the top 25.

First let’s nit just gloss over that 60% of the league would be getting bids. I’ll sign up for that today. Secondly, I don’t the round robin affects the bids as much as you think. A hypothetical... SJU finishes 4th in a stacked BE this year. OOC they knock of Duke who wins the ACC and they end up beating #1 (I hope) Nova, #3 Xavier and #10 SHU. Enter the tourney with 6 losses—all to other BE tourney teams. Don’t think they’d be a top 4 seed?
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:52 am

GumbyDamnit! wrote:
stever20 wrote:Butler in at #26. So Big East with 3 left and presumably top 6 seeds, then 3 in the 7-10 range. That's where you see the impact of the round robin- extremely difficult if not impossible to get more than 3 teams as top 6 seeds(if you are getting 6+ teams in the tourney). Seeing it with Big 12 as well- they have 7 in, but only have 3 teams as well in the top 25.

First let’s nit just gloss over that 60% of the league would be getting bids. I’ll sign up for that today. Secondly, I don’t the round robin affects the bids as much as you think. A hypothetical... SJU finishes 4th in a stacked BE this year. OOC they knock of Duke who wins the ACC and they end up beating #1 (I hope) Nova, #3 Xavier and #10 SHU. Enter the tourney with 6 losses—all to other BE tourney teams. Don’t think they’d be a top 4 seed?


Except for it to be #1 Nova, #3 Xavier, an #10 SHU- and a SJU with what you say..... means all the other teams- Creighton, Butler, etc.- will have pretty much 0 wins vs those 4 teams- meaning 8 losses right there. Would be very difficult for those other teams to make the tourney with 0 wins vs top 4 teams. Those teams in their other 23 games would need to go like bare minimum 18-5 to have a shot. Or 17-6 if they get like 1 win. And that's giving them pretty much 0 wins vs the top teams from the Big East. So really to get a shot would probably need 19 or 20 wins.

It's really either you get a lot of teams in the tournament with mediocre seeds or you get not as many teams in with great seeds. Extremely difficult to get both.

Also just looking at the last 4 years- 4th place teams in 10 team round robin conferences. Only 6 teams in those 4 years did the 4th place team finish with 6 losses in conference play. 7 times the 4th place team had 9 losses.
stever20
 
Posts: 13406
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:29 pm

stever20 wrote:
GumbyDamnit! wrote:
stever20 wrote:Butler in at #26. So Big East with 3 left and presumably top 6 seeds, then 3 in the 7-10 range. That's where you see the impact of the round robin- extremely difficult if not impossible to get more than 3 teams as top 6 seeds(if you are getting 6+ teams in the tourney). Seeing it with Big 12 as well- they have 7 in, but only have 3 teams as well in the top 25.

First let’s nit just gloss over that 60% of the league would be getting bids. I’ll sign up for that today. Secondly, I don’t the round robin affects the bids as much as you think. A hypothetical... SJU finishes 4th in a stacked BE this year. OOC they knock of Duke who wins the ACC and they end up beating #1 (I hope) Nova, #3 Xavier and #10 SHU. Enter the tourney with 6 losses—all to other BE tourney teams. Don’t think they’d be a top 4 seed?


Except for it to be #1 Nova, #3 Xavier, an #10 SHU- and a SJU with what you say..... means all the other teams- Creighton, Butler, etc.- will have pretty much 0 wins vs those 4 teams- meaning 8 losses right there. Would be very difficult for those other teams to make the tourney with 0 wins vs top 4 teams. Those teams in their other 23 games would need to go like bare minimum 18-5 to have a shot. Or 17-6 if they get like 1 win. And that's giving them pretty much 0 wins vs the top teams from the Big East. So really to get a shot would probably need 19 or 20 wins.

It's really either you get a lot of teams in the tournament with mediocre seeds or you get not as many teams in with great seeds. Extremely difficult to get both.

Also just looking at the last 4 years- 4th place teams in 10 team round robin conferences. Only 6 teams in those 4 years did the 4th place team finish with 6 losses in conference play. 7 times the 4th place team had 9 losses.


This is just not accurate. You are manipulating data to reach a conclusion where there is no correlation. These teams stand on their own both inside and outside a conference. Round robin, directly, means nothing. If a league is strong there are just more difficult games. It’s not unlike the ACC last year. A lot of great teams mean more opportunity for great wins and tough losses. ND ends up a 5 seed but we’re 0-2 OOC vs ranked teams and were 4-8 overall vs ranked teams. Somewhat pedestrian until you see that they beat L,vile and FSU twice. Duke, 5th place, 2 seed. UVA, double digit losses, 6th place, 5 seed. I’d the BE wins games OOC there is no reason to penalize teams when they lose 6-8 games in a really tough league.
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:21 pm

But for the Big East to have 4 top teams like you're saying, they would need to beat the tar out of the other 6 teams. That gives those teams 7-8 conference losses right off the bat. That's going to require to get 6 or 7 teams in the tourney for there to be 3 putrid teams, and then pretty much split with 5-7 teams. That gives teams 5-7 a 8-10 conference record. 10 losses before you get OOC is a lot. Until we start to consistently see 17-14 or worse teams getting in the tourney, your overall record matters in getting in the tourney.

Notre Dame last year a prime example with the non round robin making a difference. They finished in 4th place in the conference at 12-6. The ACC had 6 teams finish in conference play with a 11-7 record or better. All 6 of those teams finished with a 5 seed or stronger. Big East had 2 teams finish with a 11-7 or better record. That's the round robin in a nutshell.
stever20
 
Posts: 13406
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby milksteak » Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:27 am

stever20 wrote:The ACC had 6 teams finish in conference play with a 11-7 record or better. All 6 of those teams finished with a 5 seed or stronger. Big East had 2 teams finish with a 11-7 or better record. That's the round robin in a nutshell.


The ACC is also 50% larger, but you’re right...the round-robin is completely to blame.

Leave it to Stever to find a problem with getting 70% of your league into the Big Dance.

“Leave it to Stever”...I like that. It would be a segment on ESPN where Stever takes anything positive about the Big East and spins it until it’s negative, but the same doesn’t apply to the AAC. In fact, the opposite occurs.
"I am a penned-up, leashed dog right now, and I can't wait to get started for Butler University."
- Barry Collier, August 1, 2006
User avatar
milksteak
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:32 am

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:17 am

milksteak wrote:
stever20 wrote:The ACC had 6 teams finish in conference play with a 11-7 record or better. All 6 of those teams finished with a 5 seed or stronger. Big East had 2 teams finish with a 11-7 or better record. That's the round robin in a nutshell.


The ACC is also 50% larger, but you’re right...the round-robin is completely to blame.

Leave it to Stever to find a problem with getting 70% of your league into the Big Dance.

“Leave it to Stever”...I like that. It would be a segment on ESPN where Stever takes anything positive about the Big East and spins it until it’s negative, but the same doesn’t apply to the AAC. In fact, the opposite occurs.


That's not what we were talking about. I was saying with 10 teams and a round robin- you either can get a lot of teams in with mediocre seeds, OR not get as many teams in- but with stronger seeds.

ACC had 40% of their league finish with a 11-7 record or better. All got 5 seeds or stronger. Big East had 20% of their league with 11-7 or better. That's a difference. While it's possible the Big East can do the 4 teams with 11-7 or better- doing that makes it really hard for teams 5-7 to get in with that... The ACC doesn't have that problem at all.
stever20
 
Posts: 13406
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby Savannah Jay » Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:54 am

milksteak wrote:
stever20 wrote:The ACC had 6 teams finish in conference play with a 11-7 record or better. All 6 of those teams finished with a 5 seed or stronger. Big East had 2 teams finish with a 11-7 or better record. That's the round robin in a nutshell.


The ACC is also 50% larger, but you’re right...the round-robin is completely to blame.

Leave it to Stever to find a problem with getting 70% of your league into the Big Dance.

“Leave it to Stever”...I like that. It would be a segment on ESPN where Stever takes anything positive about the Big East and spins it until it’s negative, but the same doesn’t apply to the AAC. In fact, the opposite occurs.


Perhaps Stever didn't know that the ACC has 15 teams in it...or he just never takes his foot off the gas of the douche-mobile.

Leave it to Stever...I think you're on to something. Instead of trying to have a discussion with someone who is uninterested or incapable of intelligent conversation, whenever he posts his drivel, the only response is "Leave it to Stever."
Savannah Jay
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:47 am

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby stever20 » Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:16 am

Once again...
ACC- 40% of their conference able to finish with 11-7 or better record.
BE- 20% of the conference able to finish with 11-7 or better record.

now look more than just last year- last 4 years
ACC- 2 years with 5 teams at 11-7 or better(33%). 2 years with 6 teams at 11-7 or better(40%). So average is 5.5 teams/year. or about 37%.
BE- had years with 2,4,3,2 teams at 11-7 or better. So average is 2.75 teams/year. Or about 27%

the average ACC seed in those 4 years of those teams 11-7 or better 3.29. The average BE seed in those 4 years of those teams 11-7 or better 3.36. So almost exactly the same.

It's just easier to get more teams with better conference records w/o having the round robin. And more teams with better conference records helps conferences get teams in the tourney with stronger seeds. And I think we're going to see a difference this year with the AAC with them able to get more teams in the tourney with them having less of a round robin. Pac 12 for instance has had 14 teams in the 4 years with at least 11 conference wins. 29% of conference. Of those 14- 12 had at least 12 conference wins. 25%.
stever20
 
Posts: 13406
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby Xudash » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:08 am

LEAVE IT TO STEVER.
XAVIER
Xudash
 
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: College Sports Madness Top 144 teams

Postby bluejayfanatic » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:00 pm

I'm not necessarily married to the double round robin format - I think it has advantages and disadvantages. But to address stever's point, the only other power conference with 10 teams and a true DRR (the Big 12) the past 6 years (every year it's had 10 teams) had 40% of its teams at 11-7 or better. In fact, it had four teams with 12-6 records or better in 2017 and 2012, and 50% at 11-7 or better in 2015 and 2013. So while I think there are legitimate reasons why a double round robin should not be seen as the holy grail of conference scheduling, it's not due to stever's reasoning.
bluejayfanatic
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests