Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Hoopfan]

Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.

Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.

For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.

I'm no expert or have all the facts but it had something to do with the UD coach and NCAA having a disagreement and UD refusing to play in NCAA tournament at the time. Looking back now...was a bad decision

[R Jay]

I see this discussion has come full circle.
We started out with the usual candidates: Gonzaga, VCU, and Dayton and proceeded to shoot holes in them all. Then we survived the onslaught on Dayton fans and the angered Xavier fans responses. And now we have the "never gonna happen" teams starting to show up (in addition to JP's insistence on St. Bonaventure.)
So shut it down, wrap it up, cease and desist, it's all over.

*I know this is going to go another 60 pages in which we go back to the beginning and do this all over, because that's what we do...

[bmorex]

[Bill Marsh]

Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.

Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.

For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.

I'm well aware of the NIT's glory days however, it's been said many a time, this is a what have you done recently world and the NCAA tournament totals is about all anyone's going to look up. Notice the blue bloods were choosing the NCAA not NIT back then. It was a heck of a lot more prestigious but that doesn't suddenly put the Duke, UCLA, Kansas, Kentucky or UNC in there. In particular I'd argue about the time that Cinci was winning the back to back titles is when the NCAA overtook the NIT.

I agree that it's a "What have you done for me lately?" world, I was talking specifically with regard to comments about Dayton's historical accomplishments. What anyone chooses to look up is not what a program has accomplished "lately". If they choose to use cumulative NCAA tournament appearances, then they are acting out of ignorance. In the context of this conversation, NCAA tournament appearances were introduced as proof that Dayton was never a consistent winner. Nothing could be further from the truth about a program that is top 50 all time in wins.

Fact is that the "blue bloods" were not choosing the NCAA over the NIT. Kentucky went to the NIT 3 times in the 1940's. Utah is on the public record as preferring the NIT in the 1940s because it was the more prestigious tournament. They won an NCAA title as a consolation prize after losing in an NIT that was won by St. John's in 1943. They persisted and finally got their NIT championship in 1947. Schools had the option of choosing either or both tournaments up through 1950. A number did just that.

Schools in conferences tended to play in the NCAA tournament because they were the ones who founded that tournament in reaction to the start up of the NIT. Independents, of whom there were many back then, tended to prefer the NIT because there were very few spots for them in the NCAA tournament. Some of your blue bloods like Duke and UCLA weren't even "blue bloods" before the 1960's. Indiana and North Carolina had some success but were far from perennial threats. Kansas achieved the success they did largely because they played every year in the notoriously weak Midwest region.

I agree with you that the NCAA didn't achieve the prominence that we ascribe to it today until the 1960's, but I'd bring the date beyond the Cincinnati titles to 1965 when the NIT title still mattered. For most of the 1950s, the NIT was loaded with ranked teams and the 2 tournaments couldn't be distinguished based on the number of quality teams.

Whatever point we take it to, we're talking about a third or more of the tournament era in which the NIT mattered. So, back to the original point, which is that ?Dayton can't be denigrated as a historically mediocre program based on NCAA tournament appearances. Not when they were almost annually a ranked team in the '50s and '60s, went almost annually to one of the 2 tournaments, went to 3 NIT finals, winning one, and went to one NCAA finals.

[Bill Marsh]

Was unaware of the attendence figures of the two. Personally I think some of those issues are caused by the quality of competition coming in though it'd be hard to prove that without setting up a home and home. Davidson you may be able to prove by seeing how much their attendence increased with the upgrade to the a10 (did it?)

Note I certainly dont think Davidson or Belmont are better options currently but Id love to get a pulse on their plans and see them executed because with Dayton we know what we're getting a consistent NIT team that occasionally puts together a season to get over that hump. With Davidson and Belmont we're getting a clean slate that's used to winning at their respective levels and a big step up may attract more casual fans.

Davidson has 1800 students. Come on. You can't seriously think of them as a school that can maintain a big time basketball program. They are the very definition of "small school". We're talking about the BIG East.

[Bill Marsh]

Although it's done all the time, using NCAA tournament appearances as a measure of a program's historical success is simply not valid. Not when the NIT was as important or almost as important for at least the first third of tournament history. Not when inferior conferences were getting automatic bids they didn't deserve for many years while other deserving schools were denied participation.

Dayton was a consistent national power in the 1950's and 1960's. There really is no dispute about that. They were ranked in the final poll at the end of the season 13 times in 17 years from 1951-67, being ranked as high as #3 in the 1950's. They played in the championship game against UCLA in 1967, won the 1962 NIT when that was at least the equivalent of getting to the Final Four, and they lost in the finals of the NIT twice in the 1950's.

For whatever the reasons, Dayton's trips to the postseason were more frequently in the NIT than the NCAA, but that was true of a lot of top teams back then. To say that Dayton never had any consistency in their history other than one 5 year period is simply not true.

I'm no expert or have all the facts but it had something to do with the UD coach and NCAA having a disagreement and UD refusing to play in NCAA tournament at the time. Looking back now...was a bad decision

Dayton went to the sweet 16 in 1952. They didn't return to the NCAA tournament until 1965 despite being nationally ranked almost every year. So, you may be right. But they weren't the only nationally ranked schools who preferred the NIT. Catholic schools in particular seemed to prefer it.

In the decade following their return to the NCAA tournament (1965-74) they received 6 bids, went to 4 Sweet 16s, and once to the championship game

[RDriesenUD]

I'm a SJU alum and would love to see the redmen play Dayton, in conference or out of conference. I think they would have a pretty good turnout for any game at MSG. I don't know the whole history of the feud with Xavier, but both have a lot to be proud of recently. If the league decides to expand, I'd pick Dayton first. This is a TV driven conference, and Fox needs games that have full arenas and enthusiastic fans. Dayton would also show up, in large numbers, for the post-season tournament.

That is something that gets overlooked. When I am trying to decide what game to watch, I almost never watch a game with few fans. Games are a lot better and more fun to watch when the arenas are full and loud.

[RDriesenUD]

Ya your 16 total appearances is such a long time. The 62 schools with more appearances are quaking in their boots. You have a 5 year stretch from 65-70, and couple stretches of back to back appearances then long droughts. No consistency whatsoever.

So, the only successfull teams are the teams that make the tournament every year and everyone else is mediocre at best?

[muskienick]

Bill, for a guy who is busy and doesn't have much time, you seemed to have disproved that claim by your 3,462 posts over the last few pages (the preceding was written in sarcastic/hyperbolic font).

[JPSchmack]

JP, I haven't claimed (as you well know from the other board) to have completely studied the math on all this; but I do trust your insights into how it works. Sometimes though I have a thought that maybe it's not as cut and dried as it may seem.

For example: if you added UD and Bona, and wanted to have Dayton be 9-9, assumedly most of their wins would come from teams below them to not upset the current 6 bids. Seton Hall had 12 loses. If they got 2 more wins from Bona, they are at 8-10. But the schedule would be reworked because you no longer play everyone twice, so I just think it would be very difficult. Not impossible (see Big 12) but tough.

I really do like the round robin; it's a rivalry of a different sort, getting to play everybody twice, H/H.

Yeah, you'd see:
East Five plus Bona play each other home & home.
West Five plus Dayton play each other home & home.
And each team would play a home & home against two teams from the other geographic side each season.

Trust me his math doesn't work for Bonaventure. He acknowledges that OOC must improve. The Bonnie's would do just the opposite.

Bona would need to be one OOC game better to benefit everyone in the league if you invited JUST THEM (which you’re wouldn’t do).

Based on 31 games:
Each additional win is worth about +.0081 on a teams’ RPI
Bona (7-4 OOC last year) causes a dip in the Big East’s OOC win percentage, so the SOS of each team in the league would fall by .0094.
The teams that beat Bona twice: RPI +0.0068
The teams that beat Bona ONCE: RPI -0.0013

You wouldn’t have the double-round in an 11-team league (THAT would be an RPI disaster), so TWO teams would lose .0013 through no fault of their own.
If the two teams that didn’t play Bona twice were Butler and Xavier, dipping .0013 would keep X in the same spot; while Butler could only drop one spot in the RPI — except the team right behind them was Dayton, who’s schedule/results/RPI would change drastically if they didn’t play Bona three times in A10 play.


Of course, Bona played at Pitt, which they wouldn’t need to do in the Big East — the idea that Bona needs to “ramp up” OOC scheduling in the Big East is ridiculous, because they don’t need to earn marquee OOC wins to help the league if they’re going 3-15. They only need signature OOC wins if they’re in the mix for an at-large. But you guys think they’re not even close to the level of Big East teams, so ha ha ha ha, no chance.

And Bona played a non-Division I opponent, which is why they were only 7-4. With Big East dollars, they could just buy a home game against a bad team, go 8-4, which makes ONE win over Bona offset the tiny SOS dip. Problem solved.


But an 11-team league with Bona is ridiculous. If Bona joined the league, it would be alongside Dayton, who’s been a .7500 program OOC SOS for the last decade, guaranteeing you RPI increases.


Any other concerns about my logic?