Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[JPSchmack]

Trying to follow all the reasons for/against adding teams to the conference. The advantage to 10 (and the round robin) is assumedly for the fans more than anything else (rivalries, even chance each year, etc.) more so than anything else (TV ratings, inventory, etc.)

…

If the Big 12 can get 7 teams in, and we can get 6 in, while conferences with 15, 14 and 12 members do no better, or even worse, it seems to be more of doing what we did this year, than anything else. Maybe the 11th and 12th members help the math as JP contends with good data, but it's not determinative.

Some issues with your line of thinking:

First, one year of data isn’t enough to come to any kind of conclusions along those lines (Especially this season, when the committee was freaking stupid).

Second, every conference you list (except for the Atlantic 10) was built under a dual-purpose pretense: FOOTBALL and Basketball, with football driving expansion. You’re not the SEC, because you don’t have football powerhouses that suck at basketball. NO ONE in your league sucks at basketball.

Third, protecting fairness in a conference race went out the window a long time ago. Creighton’s the only school who’s been playing a fair DRR this whole time. The original C5 gave that up in the Big East in 1995. Xavier, DePaul, Marquette never had it in C-USA or A-10.

Fourth, what rivalries aren’t protected in a 12-team format? The Eastern five and Western five aren’t rivals with each other. They’re only rivals amongst themselves. A 12-team Big East would have no divisions in the standings, but schedule based on East-West, preserving the actual rivalries (And fostering more of the Western ones which hardly have existed with those teams in four different conferences for the last 20 years). Then the other eight games are obviously one game vs the other six, plus two teams an extra game (either for TV/competitive balance, or just rotating through a three-year cycle). You add Bona & Dayton, and every existing geographic rivalry in the Big East is preserved, plus you gain more regional rivalries with XAV-UD, UD vs the West, Bona vs the East. Inventory increases, no rivalries lost.


And most importantly, the number of bids is not a function of membership size.

Why did the Big Ten, with the #4 Conference RPI, get one more bid than the Big East with the #2 conference RPI? Your league is stronger. (ignoring that the committee screwed up royally and put Purdue and Indiana in the field when they didn’t deserve it).

Purdue (12-6) played 10 games vs teams 9-14 in the Big Ten.
Indiana (9-9) played 8 games vs teams 9-14 in the Big Ten.
Seton Hall (6-12) played 4 games vs 9-10 in the Big East.

Without teams 11-14 of the Big Ten, Purdue and Indiana have to play (and lose) another four times to the top six.

Let’s look at your chart with “OOC win pct by non-NCAA teams” and the number of conference losses by 7th and 8th place:

1 RPI - B12 - (7 bids, 70%) 30-9 (.770) — 7th place: 10 conf. losses, 8th place: 10 conf. losses
4 RPI - B10 - (7 bids, 50%) 63-23 (.732) - 7th place: 9 conf. losses, 8th place: 9 conf. losses
3 RPI - ACC - (6 bids, 33%) 69-32 (.683) - 7th place: 8 conf. losses, 8th place: 9 conf. losses
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.

[JPSchmack]

Also, I’m not a Dayton fan. But I am trying to have a serious discussion about why expanding to 12 with two programs of decent quality - regardless of whether or not they are on par with Big East quality - benefits the Big East.

It would be a lot easier to do so if Xavier & Dayton fans weren’t laying their junk on the table and arguing over who’s is bigger. IT DOESN’T MATTER who’s is bigger. The point here is that you can all score more working as wingmen than comparing your junk.

[trephin]

At one time, St. John's and NYU thrived in the same city until NYU dropped the sport.

I know what you meant, but NYU still plays basketball, albeit in D3 after a 10-12 year hiatus after leaving D1

[Flyer75]

Can you please explain (I must have a reading comprehension problem) how X's resume "blows Dayton's out of the water"?

They have the advantage in appearances....and that's it. No FF, no Ru, less E8, same amount of S16.

Unless you were referring to the Top 3?? But you have 3 categories and only 2 headings for how you organized them.

Are we really counting tourney accomplishments from the 60's? X has been the better program consistently for the last 30 years.

I'm not the one that did....MUboxer did. I'm assuming a Marq fan. He posted the "resumes" of all the BE teams and then Dayton's.

[Xudash]

Can you please explain (I must have a reading comprehension problem) how X's resume "blows Dayton's out of the water"?

They have the advantage in appearances....and that's it. No FF, no Ru, less E8, same amount of S16.

Unless you were referring to the Top 3?? But you have 3 categories and only 2 headings for how you organized them.

Are we really counting tourney accomplishments from the 60's? X has been the better program consistently for the last 30 years.

I'm not the one that did....MUboxer did. I'm assuming a Marq fan. He posted the "resumes" of all the BE teams and then Dayton's.

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.

[Xudash]

I don't see how the geography argument is hard to understand. Right now the BE elevates X to the biggest program in SW Ohio. It's natural to want to preserve that status. Dayton probably won't surpass X if they joined the BE but they definitely won't if they stay in A10.

It's hard to understand because being the only program in an area doesn't guarantee success and because having two programs in an area doesn't prevent success. Duke and North Carolina are 2 of the most successful programs in college basketball history and they're just down the road from each other. In addition, a 3rd team in close proximity, NC State has won 2 national championships.

Same is true for Kentucky and Louisville. Georgetown and Maryland, both with great histories, are a stone's throw from each other. BYU and Utah have succeeded in the same area. At one time, St. John's and NYU thrived in the same city until NYU dropped the sport.

The fact is that strong rivalries fuel interest in both programs. A combination of Xavier and Dayton would increase interest in the Big East in Ohio, a populous state. which would be good for the conference.

Bill, has it dawned on you that Butler "is in the area"? Butler is about 100 miles up I-94 in Indianapolis. The #27 DMA in the nation.

You do understand that Xavier's primary rival is UC, and that Xavier and Butler are already on the way to establishing a strong rivalry in the Big East Conference. I presume you also understand that a UD/XU game will not increase interest in the Big East in Ohio, other than for UD and Xavier fans. Ohio is comprised of Ohio State, a number of MAC schools and some very good smaller liberal arts schools like Kenyon and Dennison, etc.

Beyond all that, do you believe that expansion is necessary for the long-term success of the Big East? For that matter, how many Big East fans (not UD fans pretending to be Big East fans) believe that expansion is necessary for the long-term viability of the conference?

The Presidents aren't expanding anytime soon. There is nothing out there right now that makes sense to them, and that assumes they have a desire to expand. It's my understanding that they absolutely DO NOT have expansion on their radar right now; that they don't even desire to look into it.

We're clearly in the off-season, so this is destined to be one of the hotter topic threads that will percolate over this summer, but we're back to a very simple reality: we're at 10 now for a reason, and there is nothing that is going on right now in the Big East offices in New York that will change that.

[MUBoxer]

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.

[Ball Turret Gunner]

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.

In the Xudash spirit of picking a ridiculously arbitrary time-period to frame an argument:

Since the "modern era" of men's basketball where the NCAA tournament includes at least 68 teams (as it is presently configured), Xavier has 4 NCAA victories and Dayton has 5.

[billyjack]

XAVIER:
30 years of consistent success.

2015: 23-14.
NCAA Sweet-16.
win vs Ole Miss.
win vs Georgia State.
loss vs Arizona.

2014: 21-13.
NCAA PIG.
loss vs NC State.

2013: 17-14.

2012: 23-13.
Peak ranking at #8.
NCAA Sweet-16.
win vs Notre Dame.
win vs Lehigh.
loss vs Baylor.

2011: 24-8.
Peak ranking at #18.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Marquette.

2010: 26-9.
Peak ranking at #24.
NCAA Sweet-16.
win vs Minnesota.
win vs Pitt.
loss vs Kansas State.

2009: 27-8.
Peak ranking at #7.
NCAA Sweet-16.
win vs Portland State.
win vs Wisconsin.
loss vs Pitt.

2008: 30-7.
Peak ranking at #8.
NCAA Elite-8.
win vs Georgia.
win vs Purdue.
win vs West Virginia.
loss vs UCLA.

2007: 25-9.
Peak ranking at #24.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Brigham Young.
loss vs Ohio State.

2006: 21-11.
NCAA Round of 64:
loss vs Gonzaga.

2005: 17-12.

2004: 26-11.
NCAA Elite-8.
win vs Louisville.
win vs Mississippi State.
win vs Texas.
loss vs Duke.

2003: 26-6.
Peak ranking at #10.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Troy.
loss vs Maryland.

2002: 26-6.
Peak ranking at #22.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Hawaii.
loss vs Oklahoma.

2001: 21-8.
Peak ranking at #24.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Notre Dame.

2000: 21-12.

1999: 25-11.
Peak ranking at #13.

1998: 22-8.
Peak ranking at #7.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Washington.

1997: 23-6.
Peak ranking at #11.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Vanderbilt.
loss vs UCLA.

1996: 13-15.

1995: 23-5.
Peak ranking at #25.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Georgetown.

1994: 22-8.
Peak ranking at #22.

1993: 24-6.
Peak ranking at #18.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs New Orleans.
loss vs Indiana.

1992: 15-10.

1991: 22-10.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Nebraska.
loss vs Connecticut.

1990: 28-5.
Peak ranking at #19.
NCAA Sweet-16.
win vs Kansas State.
win vs Georgetown.
loss vs Texas.

1989: 21-12.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Michigan. <--- eventual national champion.

1988: 26-4.
Peak ranking at #18.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Kansas. <--- eventual national champion.

1987: 19-13.
NCAA Round of 32.
win vs Missouri.
loss vs Duke.

1986: 25-5.
NCAA Round of 64.
loss vs Alabama.

[Flyer75]

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'm not, nor are any Dayton fans here touting it. I simply was using your own argument. You never specified in your original post as to a timeframe. You used ALL of history, which I appreciate it. I clearly recognize that Xavier and Dayton haven't been on the same page as far as this goes in the last 25 years.

And you are right...this argument has been going on for 10+ years on another board where X fans are basically accused of thinking basketball was invented in 1986. I think ALL of basketball history is relevant. X fans don't seem to agree with that so much. So despite X's dominance of Dayton in recent years, they STILL trail Dayton in the all time series by double digits.

For example, I have a younger relative who is a die hard X fan. He became an X fan during the Sato years. The worst season he has seen is 17-14. To talk to him is like talking to a UK or Duke fan, without the banners of course. Xavier basketball to him is a dominant force and it matters not one bit what happened in say 1967 (or even 1984 or 1990). So this is a circular argument that I've quit having with him at all costs. X fans will do the same thing Dayton fans have done 20 years from now...both sides will continue to move the goal posts to fit their timeframe argument. I said to him the other day that in the last 4 years, there's been no difference between the two programs, he lost his marbles....but go look it up. None. Most likely there won't be a whole lot of difference between X and Dayton next year either, save a round or two in the tourney. But you can bet your bottom dollar when X first started wailing on Dayton, those first 5 years mattered to X fans. To Dayton fans, "hey, but look at the last 15 years". It's a circular argument, just like sports are circular.

Another point in this though is Dayton hasn't been as bad as the perception here is making it out to be during that timeframe. X was just extremely dominate during that time period. For example, I know SLU has been brought up as to why the BE should wait on a Dayton. Dayton, in the last 15 years, hasn't had even close to as bad as a year that SLU has had and as Marsh has pointed out, has compared well with Creighton. Dayton had almost all 20 win years under Purnell and Gregory and competed....but could never get over the hump that Xavier always seemed to be able to year in and year out.

But none of this matters as to if and why Dayton should be included should the BE expand in the future. Some of the best arguments for Dayton are being laid out here by non biased fans and that's telling. I'll never expect a Xavier fan to go to bat for Dayton in this argument but when SBU, Butler, St. John's, ect fans are, it's telling.