Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

The home for Big East hoops

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby Hoyas » Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:07 am

lets be honest- if we were going to add someone in the add a warm body to be cannon fodder, the #1 team would be SLU. They at least would give us a tv market along with a bridge to Creighton.
Hoyas
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:18 pm

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby lolhoya » Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:14 am

Some really bad math ITT.

The conference schedule is indeed a zero sum game. Basically by the time conference play starts, the conference as a whole has a mostly set amount of RPI points. Then those points are distributed and shuffled around among the teams during conference play.

When discussing expansion, the important thing is to try to maximize this amount of points BEFORE CONFERENCE PLAY BEGINS.

In short, you want to add teams with the best out-of-conference RPIs. That gives the league the most RPI points that then gets shuffled around during conference play.

And of course, that simply means adding the best teams. It's not that complicated.
lolhoya
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:06 am

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby stever20 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 12:56 am

lolhoya wrote:Some really bad math ITT.

The conference schedule is indeed a zero sum game. Basically by the time conference play starts, the conference as a whole has a mostly set amount of RPI points. Then those points are distributed and shuffled around among the teams during conference play.

When discussing expansion, the important thing is to try to maximize this amount of points BEFORE CONFERENCE PLAY BEGINS.

In short, you want to add teams with the best out-of-conference RPIs. That gives the league the most RPI points that then gets shuffled around during conference play.

And of course, that simply means adding the best teams. It's not that complicated.


Expansion though can change a big dynamic. If we expand, we don't have the round robin. So for instance this year's Seton Hall a classic example. If they don't have the double round robin, they very possibly don't have 2 games against the 6 tournament teams that made the tourney. So if they don't have that- but play against the 2 newer teams(and let's say they are weaker)- they win those games. Now, instead of them being 16-14 in the regular season, they are 18-12. Then they have something to play for in the BET- get a win there, and they are very possibly in the tourney.
stever20
 
Posts: 13488
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby trephin » Mon Apr 06, 2015 1:09 am

lolhoya wrote:In short, you want to add teams with the best out-of-conference RPIs. That gives the league the most RPI points that then gets shuffled around during conference play.

And of course, that simply means adding the best teams. It's not that complicated.


First, I'm surprised more people here haven't come across JPSchmack and his theory elsewhere. It's something he has espoused many times although specifically using the Bonnies is a new to me.

I believe the goal is the same as you mentioned:

To improve the OOC RPI

but his theory tries to minimize the affect on the rest of the conference which means the "best team" isn't the school with the greatest on court success. A little to middling amount of success, but not too much,

I admit to not fully grasping all the points in his theory and have no reason to doubt the math. Somewhere in my mind however, I feel like there has to be an flaw that is overlooked with this number manipulation. Perhaps its the non math aspect of the invites - the role perception (fair or not) of a conference/school and whether or not committee members would look at such schedules as a negative. "who did you play, who did you beat"
trephin
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby Bill Marsh » Mon Apr 06, 2015 3:05 am

myopicraiderfan wrote:I have to say I am impressed with the zeal for the Bonnies, but why would the average basketball fan watch a single game on TV involving them? I mentioned moving the needle and that with the exception of UConn and maybe Gonzaga, no team can pull their own weight which would require the existing teams to give up money, but lets say two doormats are added and with it two additional NCAA shares.

Right now, not including league fees, 500 million / 12 years / 10 teams = 4.16 million per team
Add two teams 500 million / 12 years / 12 teams = 3.46 million per team
Full 6 year share 250 * 6 years = 1.5 million * 2 extra shares = 3 million
500 million / 12 years + 3 million / 12 teams = 3.72 million
So even if there was a guarantee that every year two additional teams made the NCAA tourney each school would lose around 450K compared to status quo.

Lets get crazy, lets suppose that adding two teams who are great non con, but terrible in conference get added and that causes 6 more NCAA share per year!
500 million / 12 years + 9 million (6 shares * 1.5m) / 12 teams = 4.22 million per team
So if every year adding bottom to middling teams added 6 extra shares each school would get a 60K raise per year! That is significant risk with little reward.

The fact is unless you can come up with two teams worth 8.32 million combined per year to Fox, expansion isn't a priority.


According to multiple media reports at the time that the new Big East, Fox was willing to increase the pot in the event that the league increased to 12 members so that each school's TV revenue would remain the same.

The Bonnie's averaged only 3900 in home attendance this year. That is simply not the kind of program that would be considered for expansion.it would receive less time for consideration than has been spent on this message board.
Bill Marsh
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:43 am

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby butlerguy03 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:00 am

Bill Marsh wrote:The Bonnie's averaged only 3900 in home attendance this year. That is simply not the kind of program that would be considered for expansion.it would receive less time for consideration than has been spent on this message board.


Exactly. There probably are 50 schools that would be added before St. Bona.
Butler University '03
butlerguy03
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:48 pm
Location: Plainfield, IN

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby R Jay » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:13 am

stever20 wrote:Creighton had won 20+ games only 14 of the 20 years before entering the Big East (that would be 1993-94 to 2012-13 seasons).

To act like Creighton would have been a lock had VCU been private is a joke. They wouldn't have been a lock at all. I think they probably wouldn't have been in. VCU's location and better postseason success would have meant everything. The fact that in the 10 prior years VCU averaged almost 2.5 more wins than Creighton, had 2 more NCAA appearances, and did more in the tourney- Creighton couldn't compete with that. And the location thing, I totally think the eastern C7 teams would have pushed hard for a private VCU in Richmond.

The question for Creighton would be would the Big East have gone with 12 instead of 10.

OK, here's the deal. You can talk about alternate universes and different scenarios like you love to do, but the reality is that Creighton is in and VCU isn't. This debate is not only a moot point, but a completely waste of time. I'm sorry that you don't believe Creighton was deserving, but the Presidents obviously thought we were deserving. And that's what really matters.
“Even though I’m not playing I still don’t want my school to be disrespected, because I play for the name on the front of my chest, not the name on my back. I’m a part of this family now, and when they disrespected them they disrespected me”-Mo Watson Jr.
User avatar
R Jay
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby BEwannabe » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:19 am

Bill Marsh wrote:
myopicraiderfan wrote:


According to multiple media reports at the time that the new Big East, Fox was willing to increase the pot in the event that the league increased to 12 members so that each school's TV revenue would remain the same.



The common belief is that train left the station with the ratings or lack thereof, so expansion will come out of the pockets of the charter members. Who knows though, maybe Big East office has gone back to Fox and said, pretty please.
BEwannabe
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 11:31 am

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby stever20 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:23 am

R Jay wrote:
stever20 wrote:Creighton had won 20+ games only 14 of the 20 years before entering the Big East (that would be 1993-94 to 2012-13 seasons).

To act like Creighton would have been a lock had VCU been private is a joke. They wouldn't have been a lock at all. I think they probably wouldn't have been in. VCU's location and better postseason success would have meant everything. The fact that in the 10 prior years VCU averaged almost 2.5 more wins than Creighton, had 2 more NCAA appearances, and did more in the tourney- Creighton couldn't compete with that. And the location thing, I totally think the eastern C7 teams would have pushed hard for a private VCU in Richmond.

The question for Creighton would be would the Big East have gone with 12 instead of 10.

OK, here's the deal. You can talk about alternate universes and different scenarios like you love to do, but the reality is that Creighton is in and VCU isn't. This debate is not only a moot point, but a completely waste of time. I'm sorry that you don't believe Creighton was deserving, but the Presidents obviously thought we were deserving. And that's what really matters.


I have no problem at all with that. But the thing that needs to stop is folks saying that basketball is the reason why VCU is not in the Big East. Because it's not.
stever20
 
Posts: 13488
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:43 pm

Re: Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

Postby Jet915 » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:28 am

BEwannabe wrote:
Bill Marsh wrote:
myopicraiderfan wrote:


According to multiple media reports at the time that the new Big East, Fox was willing to increase the pot in the event that the league increased to 12 members so that each school's TV revenue would remain the same.



The common belief is that train left the station with the ratings or lack thereof, so expansion will come out of the pockets of the charter members. Who knows though, maybe Big East office has gone back to Fox and said, pretty please.


Is this something u made up? I have never read one thing to support this "common belief" while at the time of expansion, there were multiple reports regarding expansion to 12.
User avatar
Jet915
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 8 guests