trephin wrote:JP, i think I get your idea. I don't think it's crazy at all. I think people get sidetracked on the bottom third idea and miss your qualifiers. I was just trying to say how the idea hinges on "who YOU ARE, and who you are adding, to an extent." Meaning the OOC schedule and wins and also what I thought the line for diminishing returns of a max of 13 schools. The "show your work" was more my idea that sometimes its easier for people to understand with concrete examples so if you could show how the A10 (using the years it was 12 or 13 teams) might have gained a bid because of say a Bonnie. However, not only would this have been a lot of work, but I hadn't considered the "who YOU ARE" part which might render the A10 to BE analogy impractical. I think your replies to Dave and myself should have clarified things for everyone.
My only disagreement is the quantified value of the increased payout v the intangible, impossible to quantify perception of the conference after years of this group being attacked and torn down by fans of football schools, ESPN, and pundits. I think many here feel that the conference needs to solidify its standing first.
Yes, gaining another bid would help the reputation. But even if (and I'm finding myself in agreement with you) the numbers work out, the danger is that the detractors will still attack and that the conference is still vulnerable. I am convinced that expansion will happen eventually to gain extra bids.
I think it was Socrates who said “haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate.” Or maybe that was T-Swizzle. Either way, the Big East is ALWAYS going to have detractors from envious basketball schools, to arrogant football schools, to ESPN pretending the Big East is dead because they no longer own the property. Any “What are they doing adding ______ ?” would last for a week or so. Then everyone’s gonna go back to talking football. And if you’re going to go for the gutsy move that makes the league get more bids by adding an unconventional choice, you simply announce the move on the first Friday of the NCAA Tournament at 11:59 am. That makes the “what are they doing?” convo last for six minutes.
Then everyone will forget and the next Big East story is “the new guys finished at the bottom, but the Big East looks even stronger this year, with 9 teams in contention for NCAA bids!”
The main issue with OOC scheduling win percentage is that everyone’s OOC is different each year, and current conference foes can become OOC foes if you change leagues.
When I look at someone like Dayton, they’ve been unbelievably consistent OOC because they know what they’re doing and target 9-10 OOC wins. The main issue with them, in my opinion, is they’re too similar to the teams 7-8-9-10 in the Big East now. And it’s another team that’s gonna beat each other up and damage each other’s chances.
The other thing to consider is that because OOC scheduling changes, any team joining the Big East is going one of two ways:
1. Dayton might think there’s no need to change what’s working. And if they do what they normally do OOC, they’d probably take a step back as a program because the Big East is tougher than the A-10.
2. Step back OOC because they know the Big East is tougher, and carry as many OOC wins into January as possible.
It’s less about TOTAL OOC win percentage for the “bottom” candidates, and more about the RPI breakdown. Humor me and imagine you did invite Bonaventure. They’re not going to play at Syracuse OOC. They won’t need the guarantee money from the game because they just got a 12x increase in their TV payout. They would use that new money to up the guarantees they pay to visiting teams so they can schedule better. Anyone who’d accept a guarantee to Bona has a better chance of winning, and that’s why Bona’s dropped a couple OOC to some of the better mid-majors over the last few years. Anyone they can kick the crap out of gets more money from bigger schools. And yet, Bonaventure is still .783 OOC over the last 20 years against mid-majors OOC. With more money, they can buy easier wins and avoid accepting games they can lose. That’s they type of schedule they’d put together in the Big East.
My unconventional thinking is that if you added Dayton, Bonaventure, and Belmont for 13 (I’ll pause while you all say “Bona & Belmont? Are you freaking kidding me?” Done? Okay)…
You add two to the bottom, one to the middle.
You add one slam dunk “yeah, they’re one of us” program in Dayton.
You add one role player in Bona who’s OOC scheduling and ability to constantly exceed expectations make them never hurt you. And they’re in an uncontested region that could net you TWO top 50 TV markets in Buffalo and Rochester.
And you add one bottom team that’s in a “winnable” Nashville market and is a .754 (237-78) program the last 10 years against non-power conferences, and most those losses are against middle-tier teams they probably shouldn’t play so much of.
10-year averages for what their OOCs would look like:
.754 OOC Belmont (9-3)
.783 OOC Bona (10-2, because they go a game easier)
.810 OOC Dayton (10-2, status quo)
This season, Big East: 93-29 (.7623), Conference 90-90 (.500). TOTAL: 183-119 = (.6060 AVG SOS for a BE game),
This season, those 13: 120-37 (.7643), Conference 117-117 (.500) TOTAL: 237-154 = (.6061 AVG SOS for a BE game), which amounts to +.0010 on the RPI when you play 18 + BET)
Now, the schedule would be unbalanced, so the teams facing the bottom teams an extra time in the “six home & away opponents” would make their SOS below the average.
But they’d also have THREE MORE WINS, which far outweighs that dip.
For example, Seton Hall last year was 2-6 in 2 games each vs Butler, Xavier, Marquette and DePaul.
Instead, they’d be 5-3 in one game each vs Butler, Xavier, Marquette, DePaul, Dayton, Belmont and two vs Bona.
That’s 9-9 in Big East play, 19-12 overall, and their RPI is .5652, No. 60, tied with Ole Miss.
Miss: 20-12, 134 SOS, 3-5 vs Top 50, 11-4 vs 101+
Hall: 19-12, 93 SOS, 4-8 vs Top 50, 14-2 vs 101+
Basically, you’d be adding Seton Hall (1) and Dayton (3) to the Big East NCAA bids last year. Obviously, the alignment changes the NCAA bracket so PC can’t play UD in the Round of 64.
You’re looking at 4-5 more NCAA units:
11 units, 10 teams = 1.10 share
15 units, 13 teams = 1.16 share
16 units, 13 teams = 1.23 share