USA Predicts . . .

[notkirkcameron]

the issue is a lot having double round robin. I mean, look this year at the AAC. They have 11 teams, and they have it set where teams 5-11 all miss 2 of the top teams. So, your 5th seed team instead of having 8 games against those top teams has only 6. 2 fewer tougher games, meaning 2 fewer losses most likely. The # of losses matter. In the old Big East, the 9 seed wouldn't have to play all the top teams 2x. they'd be playing teams 1-8 at the most 11 times. They were guaranteed playing teams 10-16 at least 1x. So assuming they got 7 wins amongst the bottom teams, if they went 3-8 against the top teams, they were 10-8 in conference play. Add to that 11 OOC wins, and they were 21-10 and tourney bound. When you don't have the double round robin, you can gerrymander the schedule.

I would say a big part of the problem isn't just the # of teams, but the seeding of teams. I mean, last year PC was a 11 seed(and misses the tourney if they don't win the conference).

Also, I would say the ACC isn't a vaild comparison because they only had 9 teams. Why does that matter? Because instead of 18 conference games, they had 16 conference games. Fewer losses. The number of losses matters. In a double round robin like the Big East, last year was actually a fluke. Normally the #5 seed won't have only 8 losses.

Look at last years standings amongst all conferences- and look at some of the 10 team round robin conferences. Keep in mind, there's 9 10 team round robin conferences. While the quality of conferences are different- it's still a double round robin situation.
WCC- #5 at 8-10, #6 at 7-11
SBC- #5/6 both at 9-9
SWAC- #6 at 9-9
Patriot #6 at 7-11
MVC- #4 thru #6 all at 9-9
B12- #6 at 9-9
AAC- #6 at 8-10

The only #6 team that was above .500 was in the Atlantic Sun, where Lipscomb finished 10-8.
The only #5 team that had more than 10 wins was in the AAC, where Memphis finished 12-6.

A team that is 10-8- 5th place- for them to feel really safe, needs to have gone 11-2 OOC.
A team that is 9-9- 6th place- for them to feel really safe, needs to have gone 12-1 OOC.

So the double round robin makes it where for those 5th/6th place teams, they better have done exceptional in OOC play, or they will miss the tourney. And as we saw last year, it even makes 3/4 a dicey proposition if there's a ton of separation from 1-2 to everyone else.

What the double round-robin does is makes teams in that 5/6 range have to have done very well in OOC play. It makes the OOC play MUCH more critical than it was when we didn't have the double round robin.

In a similar vein, here is the place and the conference record of the lowest-finishing at-large Big East team to make the NCAA Tournament.

2014: 4th-place Xavier (10-8)
2013: 9th-place Cincinnati (9-9)
2012: 9th-place Connecticut (8-10)
2011: 11th-place Marquette and 10th-place Villanova (9-9)
2010: 8th-place Georgetown and 7th-place Notre Dame (10-8)
2009: 7th-place West Virginia (10-8)
2008: 8th-place Villanova (9-9)
2007: 9th-place Villanova (9-7)*
2006: 7th-place Seton Hall (9-7)*

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

League Record Relatively Unchanged
For starters, it shows that despite the switch to a double-round robin, the league record of the last at-large team to qualify has been relatively constant. No "Last BE team in" has had a conference record better than 10-8 or 9-7, nor worse than 8-10.

League Placement Relatively Unchanged
Further, look at the placement of said teams. They are the mid-table teams regardless of league size. In the 16-team Superconference era, the last BE team in finished no better than 7th out of 16, with an average finish of 8.5 out of 16. Take away 2011, which was a complete historical outlier, and the average finish rises to 8.1. In the NBE, the last team in was 4th out of 10; not exactly a departure from form.

To recap:
2009: The Big East's 7th place team out of 16 finishes with a league record of 10-8 from a non-double round robin schedule. This is evidence of the league's (and non-double round robin's) superiority.

2014: The Big East's 4th place team out of 10 finishes with a league record of 10-8 from a double round robin schedule. This is evidence of the league's (and double-round robin's) weakness.



Double round robin isn't the reason there are fewer Big East teams in the tournament.
Having fewer teams in the Big East is the reason there are fewer Big East teams in the tournament.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

[R to the OB]

+1
Exactly.

[stever20]

one MAJOR difference though is what were the seeds of those teams lowest finishing teams that were the last making the tournament?
2013 Cincy 10 seed
2012 UConn 9 seed
2011 Marquette/Villanova 11/9 seed
2010 Georgetown/ND 3/6 seed
2009 West Va 6 seed
2008 Villanova 12 seed
2007 Villanova 9 seed
2006 Seton Hall 10 seed

So it's not the same by any means. Only Nova in 2008 would have been in a PIG.

Also, you have to admit in 2012 for instance, the schedule helped USF get into the tournament. USF was 12-6 in the schedule- they had 3 teams they played 2x. Villanova(5-13), Providence(4-14), and Pittsburgh(5-13). You can't tell me that if there was a round robin that USF gets into the tourney. 2012 is THE example of the non-double round robin schedule helping the Big East. And 2014 was the example of the round robin schedule hurting the Big East. You can't tell me that if Georgetown or St John's didn't have 8 games with Nova, Creighton, Xavier, and PC(Geo going 3-5, SJ going 2-6)- but instead like 5, but having 3 other games in conference- that most likely Georgetown and St John's are both in the tourney. Especially St John's.

Also league placement is hardly unchanged. only 2 of 8 years did we not have at least half the teams in the tourney. Last year we had 4 teams in, and that's only because PC won the tourney, otherwise we would have had 3 teams in. 30% is a far cry from half.

The odds are very good that if we expanded by 2 teams, we would go from averaging 4 teams making the tourney a year to 6 teams making the tourney. There were 4 conferences last year that had 12 teams that played 18 games. 2 of those conferences(Big South and Pac 12)- had 7 teams finish 10-8 or better. The MAC had 6 such teams. The Big Ten had only 5, but then a 6th at 9-9 and a 7th at 8-10.

[Omaha1]

The odds are very good that if we expanded by 2 teams, we would go from averaging 4 teams making the tourney a year to 6 teams making the tourney. There were 4 conferences last year that had 12 teams that played 18 games. 2 of those conferences(Big South and Pac 12)- had 7 teams finish 10-8 or better. The MAC had 6 such teams. The Big Ten had only 5, but then a 6th at 9-9 and a 7th at 8-10.

Huh? I agree with Kirk 100% and Stever 0%. If we add two teams we automatically go from 4 to 6 in the dance? Illogical. Be honest: are you a Dayton fan or VCU fan? I haven't seen any Big East fans making cases for expansion like this, but plenty of Dayton and VCU fans who have.

[R to the OB]

Thought that we had decided that Stever was an AAC fan. No matter what, he doesn't root for any Big East team nor the conference.
Can we please put this topic to death? There are so many better things to discuss, like team previews. I thought we were going to be doing those throughout the summer.

[DudeAnon]

The odds are very good that if we expanded by 2 teams, we would go from averaging 4 teams making the tourney a year to 6 teams making the tourney. There were 4 conferences last year that had 12 teams that played 18 games. 2 of those conferences(Big South and Pac 12)- had 7 teams finish 10-8 or better. The MAC had 6 such teams. The Big Ten had only 5, but then a 6th at 9-9 and a 7th at 8-10.

Huh? I agree with Kirk 100% and Stever 0%. If we add two teams we automatically go from 4 to 6 in the dance? Illogical. Be honest: are you a Dayton fan or VCU fan? I haven't seen any Big East fans making cases for expansion like this, but plenty of Dayton and VCU fans who have.

I hate to do this but there is some logic to stevers argument. First is a just more teams is like more lottery tickets, it can't really hurt your chances. And it also allows the power programs more easy wins. Last year there were really only 2 easy wins" DePaul and Butler. There are counterarguments, but its not a completely one-sided debate.

[stever20]

The odds are very good that if we expanded by 2 teams, we would go from averaging 4 teams making the tourney a year to 6 teams making the tourney. There were 4 conferences last year that had 12 teams that played 18 games. 2 of those conferences(Big South and Pac 12)- had 7 teams finish 10-8 or better. The MAC had 6 such teams. The Big Ten had only 5, but then a 6th at 9-9 and a 7th at 8-10.

Huh? I agree with Kirk 100% and Stever 0%. If we add two teams we automatically go from 4 to 6 in the dance? Illogical. Be honest: are you a Dayton fan or VCU fan? I haven't seen any Big East fans making cases for expansion like this, but plenty of Dayton and VCU fans who have.

I'm a Georgetown fan and I do think it's a huge mistake staying at 10. I'm not saying it'll be automatically going from 4-6 but then again, the 4 isn't automatic either in a 10 team conference(see last year if PC loses in the BET- with 1 of the 3 being in the PIG). The Round-Robin is a quaint concept- but we haven't been round robin in ages, and we sure as heck didn't suffer.

[SJHooper]

I know this isn't very scientific, but isn't the issue simply not having consistently bad teams to beat up on? I think if we added another 6 bad teams we would be getting more top 15 type teams instead of in and out of the top 25 type teams. The recipe to getting ranked is either beating a few ranked teams as an unranked team (St. John's in 2011), or just beating up on bad competition (Wichita State in the MVC, Murray State a few years back, etc.).

The problem is that there is only 1 consistently, legitimately bad team (DePaul), and even DePaul can still pull the upset like against St. John's and G'Town. We don't have slouch programs…they are all at the very least competitive. You can't take games off. In the MVC last year, Wichita State could just cruise through the conference because no other team came close to matching their talent. It was a major discrepancy. Our conference is too strong for 3 or 4 teams to get good and fat off of. In the old Big East, teams like Louisville and Cuse could essentially count on wins against SHU, SJU, Rutgers, USF, DePaul, PC, etc. That's SIX games they just ran through winning almost every time without breaking a sweat. There was clear separation there. In the new Big East there is not much separation. Any given night any team can lose. Nova is the closest example of a team that should be able to run through the conference and get a top 10 ranking, but who else can?

We beat on each other. It's nearly impossible for a team in our conference to go undefeated in conference play. In the MVC that was simple for Wichita State because they were on a different planet and Creighton was gone. There is much more parity here. If you want those top 5 or top 10 rankings you essentially need to have at most 1 or 2 conference losses and defeat some good ranked teams.

Old Big East teams that the top teams could count on beating regularly with relative ease: SHU, SJU, Rutgers, USF, DePaul, PC (6 total).

New Big East teams that the top teams could count on beating regularly with relative ease: MAYBE DePaul, but even they have gotten dangerous (1 total).

We simply don't have enough bad teams that will roll over for the top tier teams in conference. Anyone can be beat on any given day here. Back in 2012 when SJ would play Cuse/L'Ville, I knew we would lose by 20. And we did. Again, it was clear separation in terms of talent. Nova, G'Town, Marquette, Xavier, and Creighton (if they prove they can succeed without their dream team roster) need to be the teams to keep getting ranked consistently. I think SJU is very important to the league in terms of how we do, but with Lavin here I doubt we ever see a tournament berth or ranking with his kids.

[robinreed]

Please let us stay at 10 schools. Three in the dance per year and an occasional fourth is sufficient. Don't give Fox a chance to cancel the contract or demote us to FS2 as they might do if we add 2 to 6 dogs to the conference. True it would be more games to televise but it would constitute an even further reduction of our viewership (per game) numbers.

Wait a few years until our viewership builds up and the TV numbers are worth what Fox is paying us and then add 2 to 6 teams. I think I can say that XU will be in the dance often enough and perhaps almost every year without the addition of dogs. One DePaul is sufficient. If anything I hope that DePaul improves not that it gets an influx of twin sisters.

[stever20]

Please let us stay at 10 schools. Two or three in the dance per year and an occasional fourth is sufficient. Don't give Fox a chance to cancel the contract or demote us to FS2 as they might do if we add 2 to 6 dogs to the conference. True it would be more games to televise but it would constitute an even further reduction of our viewership (per game) numbers.

Wait a few years until our viewership builds up and the TV numbers are worth what Fox is paying us and then add 2 to 6 teams. I think I can say that XU will be in the dance often enough and perhaps almost every year without the addition of dogs. One DePaul is sufficient. If anything I hope that DePaul improves not that it gets an influx of twin sisters.

Why do we have to add dogs? Add VCU and Saint Louis- those 2 may be the 2 that are the plus 2 in terms of tourney teams.

And I'm sorry but if you are content with 2-3 in the dance with an occasional 4th team- that's just pure mid major thinking. Xavier fans may be fine with that but pretty much no C7 fan would be.