trephin wrote:Bill Marsh wrote: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.
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.
Gopher+RamFan wrote: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!
Bill Marsh wrote:The flaw in Schmack's theory is that there's absolutely nothing predictable about this characterization of Bonaventure or anyone else.
DudeAnon wrote: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.
JPSchmack wrote:Bill Marsh wrote: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.DudeAnon wrote: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.
JPSchmack wrote:Bill Marsh wrote: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.
trephin wrote: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.
Make Your Bones wrote: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?
Bill Marsh wrote: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.
marquette wrote: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.
stever20 wrote:I think if we were going to take a flyer on someone(no pun intended)- Duquesne or Detroit Mercy would be much more likely.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests