Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Bill Marsh]

The flaw in Schmack's theory is that there's absolutely nothing predictable about this characterization of Bonaventure or anyone else. While the idea of a consistent bottom feeder that is consistently successful OOC sounds good in theory, can any school really be counted on for this kind of performance over the long term? The idea is ludicrous.

While past performance is not an indicator of future returns as financial investments warn, why can't an historical analysis of a school's OOC be valid? How is it different than when the current membership's history in NCAA bids and overall success is/was discussed? The OOC is just a subset of that data.

You just answered your own question. "Past performance is NOT an indicator of future returns."

An historical analysis of a school's OOC is valid. BUT as history, NOT as a predictor of future performance. Yes, it is just a subset, but as a smaller number it is inherently less reliable than analysis of a team's overall performance.

I don't know what kind of analysis that JP did of Bonaventure's history to come up with his characterization of lose in conference/win OOC. One year? Five years? Ten years? 25 years? How long a pattern are we talking about?

Almost all programs go through ups and downs. Bonaventure themselves, as a team that once went to the Final 4, is as much an example of that as anyone. As coaches change and as other circumstances change, so do a school's fortune's on the court. The idea that any school could be added as a predictable conference bottom feeder but an equally predictable OOC winner is simply not a tenable prediction, given all of the circumstances that are beyond anyone's control.

Moreover, the historical analysis of any member's past performance was not the single overriding factor in choosing them as a member - whether that choice was made 3 years ago or 37 years ago. The other factors I mentioned are far more important than a statistical analysis of past performance.

Again, forget the name St Bonaventure. I don't think the time is right to expand but no one has disproved the logic behind JPSchmack's idea.

The problem isn't with the logic of the idea he presented of a conference loser/OOC winner. The problem is with the expectation that a program fitting that description today will still fit that description in 5, 10, 20, or 40 years. For that kind of assurance other criteria are required, and the required program criteria just don't describe St. Bonaventure - even if it were a double blind experiment in which I didn't know their name.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I vote that the Big 12 test this theory by expanding to include Tulane and Rice. By the same logic, it should help elevate Oklahoma State, Kansas State and TCU in basketball, as well as all of the teams in football (perhaps maybe not Kansas, but that's another story).

[Gopher+RamFan]

I'm just here to say, unlike our Dayton brothers, VCU would very much like to be in the Big East. The reasons for inclusion have been noted many times (RPI hasn't been north of 100 since 2002, $25 million basketball only practice facility, 30k students, large alumni base, proven fan travel to NYC, $2 million a Year contract with Learfield sports).

We'll say yes right now - we even have a Catholic Cathedral on campus!

[DeltaV]

I'm just here to say, unlike our Dayton brothers, VCU would very much like to be in the Big East. The reasons for inclusion have been noted many times (RPI hasn't been north of 100 since 2002, $25 million basketball only practice facility, 30k students, large alumni base, proven fan travel to NYC, $2 million a Year contract with Learfield sports).

We'll say yes right now - we even have a Catholic Cathedral on campus!

VCU and Davidson...keep the East in the Big East and make a push into ACC country.

Of course, no personal bias now...I moved last year to South Carolina, and I'd be able to see Nova whenever they come to town

[JPSchmack]

The flaw in Schmack's theory is that there's absolutely nothing predictable about this characterization of Bonaventure or anyone else.

That’s silly. You broke off from the OBE and selected three schools based on the entire premise that y’all and those schools, all being traditionally very good basketball programs, would continue to be very good basketball programs. Most of the schools up for discussion are, by and large, teams that beat teams below them at a pretty consistent rate. Obviously, there’s ups and downs, but over time, it’s actually pretty consistent when you look at records vs RPI ranges, or records vs mid-majors/BCS/one-bid leagues, etc.

Can we honestly say any of our teams that didn't make the tourney deserved to? Until the answer to that question is yes, we have no reason to tinker.

That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: You don’t “deserve” to make the tournament when you lose 13+ games… But if you put 10 NCAA teams in the same conference, FOUR of them are losing 13+ games.


You were the Number 2 conference by OOC RPI last season. OOC isn’t an issue. Let’s look at in conference:

UCLA: 2-2 vs Pac12 Top 50 (9-5 vs others)
Ohio State: 1-4 vs Big Ten Top 50 (10-3 vs others)
Dayton: 1-1 vs A10 Top 50 (12-4 vs others)
Georgia: 0-3 vs SEC Top 50 (11-4 vs others)

4-10 combined vs Top 50, 42-16 vs others, all four got NCAA bids.

Seton Hall: 3-9 vs Big East Top 50 (3-3 vs others)
Creighton: 2-10 vs Big East Top 50 (2-4 vs others)
DePaul: 2-10 vs Big East Top 50 (4-2 vs others)
Marquette: 1-11 vs Big East Top 50 (3-3 vs others)

8-40 combined vs Top 50, 12-12 vs others, not smelled the post-season.

That’s why you should be considering expansion. And that is why unconventional choices help your league more than powerful programs. You’ve got plenty of power already in the league. You’re literally TOO STRONG and it’s forcing four NCAA caliber programs to be worse than they would be if there was a bottom.

[stever20]

The flaw in Schmack's theory is that there's absolutely nothing predictable about this characterization of Bonaventure or anyone else.

That’s silly. You broke off from the OBE and selected three schools based on the entire premise that y’all and those schools, all being traditionally very good basketball programs, would continue to be very good basketball programs. Most of the schools up for discussion are, by and large, teams that beat teams below them at a pretty consistent rate. Obviously, there’s ups and downs, but over time, it’s actually pretty consistent when you look at records vs RPI ranges, or records vs mid-majors/BCS/one-bid leagues, etc.

Can we honestly say any of our teams that didn't make the tourney deserved to? Until the answer to that question is yes, we have no reason to tinker.

That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: You don’t “deserve” to make the tournament when you lose 13+ games… But if you put 10 NCAA teams in the same conference, FOUR of them are losing 13+ games.


You were the Number 2 conference by OOC RPI last season. OOC isn’t an issue. Let’s look at in conference:

UCLA: 2-2 vs Pac12 Top 50 (9-5 vs others)
Ohio State: 1-4 vs Big Ten Top 50 (10-3 vs others)
Dayton: 1-1 vs A10 Top 50 (12-4 vs others)
Georgia: 0-3 vs SEC Top 50 (11-4 vs others)

4-10 combined vs Top 50, 42-16 vs others, all four got NCAA bids.

Seton Hall: 3-9 vs Big East Top 50 (3-3 vs others)
Creighton: 2-10 vs Big East Top 50 (2-4 vs others)
DePaul: 2-10 vs Big East Top 50 (4-2 vs others)
Marquette: 1-11 vs Big East Top 50 (3-3 vs others)

8-40 combined vs Top 50, 12-12 vs others, not smelled the post-season.

That’s why you should be considering expansion. And that is why unconventional choices help your league more than powerful programs. You’ve got plenty of power already in the league. You’re literally TOO STRONG and it’s forcing four NCAA caliber programs to be worse than they would be if there was a bottom.

DePaul 12-20 7 OOC losses
Seton Hall 16-15 2 OOC losses
Creighton 14-19 4 OOC losses
Marquette 13-19 4 OOC losses

sorry but only Seton Hall could have possibly been helped. And even there- you could have taken away their big win at Nova.

[handdownmandown]

The funny thing about JP is his entire reason for wanting Bonaventure to get in is so it can, after a few years, become one of the strong teams. He has outright admitted this fact in the past. So his entire argument is not to provide weakness, but ultimately add strength.

Which he can't sell, because we can buy higher quality strength in several other places.

Which makes his whole argument pointless.

[Bill Marsh]

The flaw in Schmack's theory is that there's absolutely nothing predictable about this characterization of Bonaventure or anyone else.

That’s silly. You broke off from the OBE and selected three schools based on the entire premise that y’all and those schools, all being traditionally very good basketball programs, would continue to be very good basketball programs. Most of the schools up for discussion are, by and large, teams that beat teams below them at a pretty consistent rate. Obviously, there’s ups and downs, but over time, it’s actually pretty consistent when you look at records vs RPI ranges, or records vs mid-majors/BCS/one-bid leagues, etc.

So why would they abandon that approach and invite Bonaventure?

The programs that were invited met 3 other criteria that Bonaventure doesn't:

1. Institutional commitment
2. Solid infrastructure
3. Strong fan base.

[JPSchmack]

While past performance is not an indicator of future returns as financial investments warn, why can't an historical analysis of a school's OOC be valid? How is it different than when the current membership's history in NCAA bids and overall success is/was discussed? The OOC is just a subset of that data.

Again, forget the name St Bonaventure. I don't think the time is right to expand but no one has disproved the logic behind JPSchmack's idea.

There’s a lot more variables in financial investments than what we’re talking about. Data alone can mislead you. You have to have a solid understanding of WHY the data is what it is, then you can make an informed decision and probably be right.

It’s a pretty simple answer: The Big East is the best basketball conference of non-FBS schools in the country. That’s why the Big East wins a ton of OOC games. They get better players, they can pay better coaches, they used their revenue to buy better facilities. And when they play teams without those things going for them, they usually win.

And the Atlantic 10 is second. That’s why over time, Bona’s is .757 against non-power conference teams.

Historical regular season data is waaaaaaay more telling than NCAA bids & NCAA wins. And why you need to apply your own common sense to the data: Has the program been consistent over time, through multiple head coaches, or even multiple ADs? Has the program exceeded expectations or fell short of expectations?

Here's the problem with adding a bottom feeder to increase our number of NCAA bids: you're assuming that the bottom feeder can be guaranteed to win most OOC games and lose in conference. But if that doesn't happen, we just split our TV money another way to have a RPI wrecking ball rip through our league. Do you think Depaul of last year or Temple of this year help their leagues get more bids?

So, in the hypothetical of Bona going 9-3 or 10-2 OOC, then playing Big East teams and going 2-16 to 4-14…

- Are you doubting the ability to consistently go 9-3/10-2 OOC?
- Or are you saying “what happens if they land better recruits and start going 8-10 in Big East play?”

Look over time at Conference RPI/OOC Conference win percentage. The landscape has shifted, power’s been consolidated. And yet… for the most part, there’s a TON of consistency in conference RPI.

There’s really no reason to doubt a program’s ability to win OOC over worse leagues when they’re simply moving from a league better than all those other one-bid leagues, to a league that’s even better than their old one and gives them more money. The only real concern is if you had a program that has been traditionally average/mediocre and only had success under one coach (Which appears to be happening at Saint Louis). But teams like Dayton, who’ve been to the dance under Purnell, Gregory and Miller; or Bonaventure and Richmond (both with bids under different coaches).

As for the second one, yeah. Bonaventure is probably going to grow and get better in the Big East. But their performance in the A-10 means you shouldn’t have too much cause for alarm. They’re usually picked 9th or 10th and usually finish 8th or 9th. If they’re not running the league, they probably aren’t going to step up and start beating Villanova.

An historical analysis of a school's OOC is valid. BUT as history, NOT as a predictor of future performance. Yes, it is just a subset, but as a smaller number it is inherently less reliable than analysis of a team's overall performance.

A. How do you know that’s true at all? What kind of context do you have for that?
I look around at the teams that usual win, they usually keep winning. That’s the basis for your league, isn’t it? You’re the best non-BCS basketball schools in the country.

B. How is OOC over time a smaller data set than what everyone else usually uses: NCAA bids/wins?

C. Isn’t this a good time to apply “Why” to available data, and use some common sense to see what’s important?


NCAA wins are “what happens in 40 minutes of a given day.” I’d rather use decades of data and invite Georgetown, than use 40 minutes and invite Florida Gulf Coast.
NCAA bids are the product of conference seasons. I’d rather have Seton Hall (9 NCAA bids) than North Carolina A&T (10 NCAA bids).

If you want to know what a school is probably going to do as members of the Big East, you’d probably want to look at how they’ve done against programs that are Big East, or like Big East programs.

If you want to know what a school is probably going to do OOC as members of the Big East, you’d probably want to look at how they’ve done against the kinds of teams they’d schedule OOC as Big East members. Since Big East membership comes with 12 games against Top 50 RPI teams built in, your addition is going to schedule non-power teams so they can win some games. So that’s who I looked at for Bonaventure (It was actually part of a post on a Bona site about our OOC scheduling. It was 10 seasons, with the years our scholarships were limited removed). That .757 is against non-power conference teams. Pretty much the Top 8 Conferences removed. If I ran the numbers for other programs, I’d also consider Gonzaga, Memphis, BYU, “Top 50 MVC/MWC teams” out (Bona had one of those: against a top 50 New Mexico one year). It included Top 50 members of other conferences (Kent State/Ohio mostly, last year’s Buffalo game).

[JPSchmack]

Alright JP, persistence and passion have actually spawned a (completely improbable) discussion so here goes.

Let's say in magic land 5 years down the road we decide to expand, not to 12 but to 13. We add two of Dayton, SLU, VCU and are looking for #13 to round out this scenario. At this point we have 12 teams. Each has an arena over 9,000 seats (Butler is low man, VCU is expanding theirs to 10,000 in the next couple years). Each has practice facilities (in the case of SLU and X theirs are built into their arenas). Each school has attendance over 6,000 with a conference average just a hair under 10,000 fans per game. Those numbers are all in line with other power leagues, in fact the attendance is a smidge low and puts us 5th of the 6 power conferences, although we are only 300 lower than 4th place Big 12 and 2,400 higher than the Pac 12. Bonaventure, academic side budgetary issues aside, has none of these things. Their arena holds a little over half of our average attendance, 700 fewer than the average attendance of our lowest drawing school. No practice facility. Attendance of just under 4,000.

Even if the Big East could add bonaventure without an on-court improvement, our perception as a power conference would require them to come into line with these other numbers. You won't find too many power schools who don't have similar numbers. What would this cost the cash-strapped bonnies? UW-Milwaukee's very basic proposed practice facility is estimated at $12 million. Davidson's was $15 million. I haven't found any numbers less than $25 million for an arena in 8-10,000 range. They would have to advertise and get on their journalist alumni to talk them up in the newspapers of Rochester, Albany, and Buffalo in order to increase their attendance. This is all assuming we would take them without any kind of on-court improvement. All in all what are we talking? $50 million? $60? Seems a bit far-fetched for a cash-strapped school to go through just for an extra $4 million a year.

Ok, that’s fair… But a few questions:
#1 - What do you care, if their presence alone in 12th or 13th place gets Marquette into the NCAA Tournament more often?
#2 - Saint Louis has that stuff NOW, how come they’re not better than Bonaventure?
#3 - If Bonaventure can be what they are NOW without all that, how much better would they be if they had it?

Ok, now we’re getting into the second part of why this unconventional idea actually makes a lot sense…

I think if we were going to take a flyer on someone(no pun intended)- Duquesne or Detroit Mercy would be much more likely.

Bonaventure, Duquesne and Detroit all don’t have the kind of resources and facilities that poster marquette was referring to. (Although, I’ve been to Duquesne, and Bonas is better off. Haven’t seen UDM.)

But either way, you’ve giving an invitee additional resources. They’d up their game with more resources.

That means they are improving FROM:
DET: .484 vs non-power last 10, .421 overall last 10
DUQ: .587 vs non-power last 10, .444 overall last 10
SBU: .757 vs non-power last 10, .562 overall last 10

So pick your starting point.

Obviously, the real reason you pick Detroit and Duquesne is market size, not basketball success or facilities. But is $4 or $5 million in additional revenue going to make people watch Detroit over Michigan State, or Duquesne over Pitt? Probably not. But you’ll get more people watching Bonaventure in Western New York because Bona is already better than Buffalo, Canisius, Niagara, (and UofR and RIT).