trephin wrote:That was more a symptom of what was happening... the basketball schools becoming more and more subject to the whims and desires of the football schools. They reclaimed the ability to captain their own ships.
Of course, there are degrees of "diluting" and JP's whole idea depends on 13 or less schools with the bottom third having exceptional OOC scheduling and win percentages. So it wouldn't apply to the A10 after the 2004-05 season (14+ schools) with the exception of 2013-14 (13 schools).
It would be interesting if JP could demonstrate his idea using the applicable seasons (<14 schools).
I suspect JP is correct but I suspect it's more important to solidify the brand and perception of the Big East by performing well as 10 school conference for several more years at the expense of the additional NCAA bid/payout.
I don’t totally follow what you’re asking…
Does ADDING MORE SCHOOLS PERIOD enable more bids? No, it doesn’t. Because it depends on who YOU ARE, and who you are adding, to an extent.
For another conference that doesn’t win as much OOC as the Big East, adding bottom feeders can be bad. Like the Mountain West adding football schools that are bad at hoops. But for the Big East, literally adding anyone would probably get you one more bid. If the teams were truly terrible, it would diminish your overall SOS/RPI, but the sure victories over those teams would offset the SOS loss in the eyes of everyone on the committee. You’d get more bids, but you’d get worse seeds in the dance. And adding teams that actually win OOC would get your two more bids easy.
I am a realist. I know that my team has virtually NO SHOT at a Big East invitation because of conventional wisdom. The reason I “waste my time” talking about it is because I’ve discovered that CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IS WRONG!
So to kinda answer your question, you’re looking for THE LINE of diminishing returns. Is the A-10 “better” because they have 14 teams instead of 10 or 12? Hell no. The RIGHT 12 would be better than the current 14 if you’re stuck with a too many terrible teams that add nothing when you expand for TV reasons in the mid-90s.
There is NOT a magic number, but there IS a perfect balance.
What I’m trying to “sell you” on is the Big East is suffering from diminishing returns of having too many “top half teams” and not enough “bottom teams.” There’s 8 to 10 NCAA caliber programs in the league NOW! The only reason the Big East doesn’t get 6, 7, 8, 9 bids year after year is because of, for example, when Marquette plays Seton Hall twice, two losses go to either Seton Hall or Marquette.
You’re worried about “diluting” the league, but literally NO ONE NOTICES/CARES about the bottom of any leagues! The only reason people don’t talk about Seton Hall and Marquette as NCAA caliber teams is because AFTER going 18-6 OOC combined last year, those two teams then lost 26 Big East games and were saddled with record of 16-15 and 13-19. Both those teams would have crushed the MAAC or CAA and won the auto, or been at-larges/autos in the A-10, MWC, WCC, MWC last year.
I’m saying that if you’re a fan of Seton Hall, Creighton, Marquette or DePaul, you have to be looking at a 15-team ACC and thinking “if we were 8th in a 15-team league, we’re 9-9 and in the NCAAs instead of 5-13 in a 10-team league.”
Are you are asking me WHAT the magic number in terms of OOC win percentage is? Even THAT is fluid. Because if you added a school, that team is going SCALE BACK their OOC schedule because they’re joining the BIG FREAKING EAST. They’d also be able to schedule BETTER because they’ve have TV revenue that allows them to buy the games they need to hit their OOC marks.
And once you pass a double-round robin or a clear division format, it’s hard to project. I can easily Excel a “12-team East/West Big East” and show you what you should expect. (For the record, I should inform you that when the Big East reformed itself into the current 10 teams, I was the sole voice of reason on A-10 boards saying “relax, we’re still a 3-4 bid conference!” and everyone thought I was crazy and we’d be a 1-2 bid league and then ate crow when we got SIX BIDS. I say this not to blank my own blank, but to save you the “what makes me think this guy really knows what the heck he’s talking about?” dialogue). But once we get into Sheg’s brilliant 13-team idea, the problem becomes “Who should play whom?” in an unbalanced schedule.
Give me the six teams everyone plays twice in a 13-team Big East, and I could show you.
Give me a 12-team Big East and your ideal candidates (and who you think they’d beat!) and I can show you.
I personally think the unconventional additions of schools in markets that are decent-sized REGIONALLY, and face the least possible competition in those regions are the best choices. I don’t think everyone in Detroit is going to abandon Michigan State and Michigan to watch Detroit Mercy in the Big East. I do think that there’s a really compelling case for a 13-team Big East with Dayton (addressing your “top half sizzle”), St. Bonaventure (market potential, media love, maintains OOC) and Belmont (winnable market, maintains OOC) that could result in NINE NCAA bids.
Skip the part where you call me crazy and just say “show your work” (or trephine, clarify what you were really asking).