Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[DudeAnon]

And they make the NCAA every year and they sell out every home game.

Both of those statements are wrong lol

Last statement on Dayton, as they have been covered way too much on this board, but they are outdrawing every Big East team except Creighton. You may not like Dayton, but recognize them for what they are, a quality program with passionate fans.

Dayton has a great fan-base. One of the few out there that supports their team no matter how bad it is. Quality is subjective I guess. They are on a good run, but that doesn't erase 30 years of futility before it.

[UD Flyer Fanatic]

First, kudos to Bill Marsh. I agree with your point on expansion above- that’s exactly how I see it. I also appreciate your comments in the past about UD as a candidate.

Dude- you make a good point. We’ve had some lean years. To add some perspective, see below UD’s post season appearances. Recall back in the day the NIT was a major tournament. My only point in sharing this is to help those not familiar with us see our basketball legacy that began in 1903.

Dayton Flyers
ALL-TIME RECORDS
107th Season
Years 1903 - Present
Overall Record: 1,569-1,076 (.595)
Atlantic 10 Record: 177-143
NCAA Tournament Record - 19-18
NIT Record - 40-22

NCAA TOURNAMENT HISTORY
Appearances (15): 1952, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1974, 1984, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2014
National Finalist: 1967
Final Four: 1967
Regional Final (Elite 8): 1967, 1984, 2014
Regional Semifinal (Sweet 16): 1967, 1974, 1984, 2014

NIT HISTORY
Appearances (24): 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1968, 1971, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012
Championships: 1962, 1968, 2010
Runner-Up: 1951, 1952, 1955, 1956, 1958

[Xudash]

I love the City of Cincinnati. It's a great town. Longfellow and Churchill were top shelf people and astute observers when it came - and still comes - to that.

But, in 2015 and with a more specific focus on P5 football and what it takes to excel at that, I can't get past the idea that UC's leadership stumbled badly when they put upwards of $80 million into a stadium renovation that moved capacity to 40k.

How loudly did OU's leadership bark at the table? Did the Texas leadership even care, or give them any attention while doing that? I guess something will leak out eventually.

In the meantime, more from the Cincinnati Enquirer: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/columnists/paul-daugherty/2016/02/05/tml-please-big-12-take-uc/79866590/

[JPSchmack]

JP, from reading your stuff, I can only conclude that you are a professional con man in the real world. You have consistently pushed the argument that the BE is capped at 6 bids in a 10 team league when they could get to 7-8 bids in a 12 team league.

Why is 7 of 12 better than 6 of 10? It isn't. 6 of 10 = 60%. 7 of 12 = 58%.

8 of 12 (66%) is only fractionally better than 6 of 10, so no big gain there either.

Your con is based on the proposition that the BE should add Bona and another A10 school, both of whom would simply roll over for BE opponents so that more of the current membership would benefit. That is of course complete nonsense and only a con man would expect anyone to buy it. The 1-2 extra bids could just as easily go to the new teams, meaning no new bids for current members since the new members, now with increased resources, would compete as hard as they could to benefit from the new affiliation.

It's the old bait and switch. Take in the Sisters of the Poor so we can become doormats, only to find that this same Trojan Horse wants to kick our butts after they get inside the walls.

What you've ignored is the increased difficulty in rising to the top with increasing numbers. All of us Big East fans experienced that. When. There were 7-9 members in the '80's, PC and SH could both rise from the bottom to reach the F4 within the first decade of league competition. No one was locked in as a bottom feeder.

However, as the league grew to 12-16 members, it became a 2-tiered conference and it was next to impossible for those in the lower half to become competitive with those in the upper half. No one wants to go back to that. It's why so many are enamored with the idea of staying at 10. It's simply more competitive that way.

To make your proposition that it's a virtual mathematic impossibility for the 10 member BE to get 7 bids, you make this proposal following on the heels of a 2015 tournament in which the 10 member B12 actually got bids. In light of that reality, why do you think that anyone would actually buy your argument?

In order:
#1 - They don’t give NCAA units based on the percentage, they give NCAA units for bids & wins. More bids is more money. It’s also hard to argue that 7 of 12 (58%) is worse than 5 of 10 (50%). And 50% is your average since forming the league. Obviously, it may go up this year, but it also might go down. You’ve got four sitting pretty and 2 very nervous teams, and 2 more who could easily make the dance out of a weaker conference if they weren’t playing 14 games against the top 4, next 2 and other team just like them (More on this in a second).

#2 - All the data suggests Bona would struggle being in the top 2/3 of the Big East because they have been firmly entrenched in the middle 1/3 of the A-10, behind programs you all viewed as inferior for the Big East. I’m getting both sides of the same argument at the same time from different people. That Bona isn’t “good enough” for the Big East and Bona is too good for the Big East at the same time.

There DEFINITELY is a selfish “Trojan Horse” reason, as a Bonaventure guy, that I’d happily play the “We can’t compete” card when talking about the Bonnies for the Big East. Of course I’d absolutely love to see that. But I’m also a realist. Posting under the same name on Bona & A-10 boards, I’m the voice of reason telling everyone they’re insane when they say the Bonnies need to increase their OOC SOS to get NCAA bids. Because it is. We’d just lose more. Bonaventure usually finishes higher in the A-10 standings than predicted every year, because we’re the scrappy underdogs. But in the A-10, that has been “Picked 10th, finish 7th” or “picked 8th, finished 6th.” We’re GOOD this year, and we’re fighting for 3-4-5. And our best players are seniors, so we’re not returning everyone to whoop the league next year. We’ll take a step back. We’ve won the A-10 regular season zero times. We’ve started 5-0 in the A-10 zero times. We’ve been in the Top 4 of the A-10 for tourney seeding four times in 30 years. We’re a middle of the pack A-10 team, and the Big East is stronger. I don’t see how that translates to being a bid-stealing team in the Big East.

The Bonnies could, and absolutely WOULD pop some Big East bubbles from time to time if we were in the league by winning a couple games we “shouldn’t.” But it’s far less than what the Big East 7-8-9-10 teams are doing RIGHT NOW, and the total number of bubble-popping games would drastically decrease with 12 teams.


#3 - I find it quite refreshing that you actually see what I’m talking about with the league being so similar to one another (one-tier vs two-tier); and you see that “expanding for more bids doesn’t help YOUR TEAM if those bids go to the new schools.” Most people have been oblivious to that fact, and would want Gonzaga/Dayton to make the league more powerful (and more cannibalistic) if those two schools weren’t located in crazy far away from the Big East footprint (Gonzaga) and in Xavier’s backyard.

You view it as “competitive” and “good.” And from a purist’s standpoint, I’d agree. It actually is quite beautiful. I watch Big East basketball all the time for that reason.
But when I watch the A-10 games, you know what I’m rooting for? What gets the league more bids. Period. Because our future strength, recruiting, perception and everything else is dictated be “number of teams on the bracket” and that NCAA check. And that’s where you’re doing yourself a disservice.

#4 - The Tiers. There’s a lot of sense with what you wrote. But I think how you put it is too simplistic. Big picture wise, the Big East is one tier of programs who over the course of history have been very good at basketball and NCAA caliber programs in most years. However, there’s degrees for each program and to suggest that Villanova/Xavier and Marquette/Hall are equals in the same tier is over-simplifying. There’s extremely blurry tiers in the Big East now.

But even your simplification backs my point: Because Big East #4 and Big East #9 are basically the same tier of program, the determining factor in who gets NCAA bids and who doesn’t is merely consistency of beating each other in the 16 games the top nine play against each other. In other words, the 4th place team is 10 seed because they went 7-3 vs other 10 seeds, and the ninth place team is 105 in the RPI because they went 3-7 against 10 seeds. The double-round robin is the only thing keeping that 9th place team out of the dance!

And combining two of your points: Who cares if there’s an inferior tier in the Big East that includes one rebuilding member (like St. John’s this year) and two new additions… as long as YOU’RE NOT IN IT. You have zero problem with the A-10 teams being inferior to the Big East, and you have zero problem with “not your team” being at the bottom of the standings. So, what do you care if two A-10 teams are inferior in the bottom of your league and enabling more Big East teams to be 8-10 or better in the Big East?

#5 - Ah, the Big 12. Yes, the Big 12 got seven bids. The difference between the Big East and Big XII is the gap between the top two Big East teams and your abundant middle, and the quality of your bottom vs their bottom.

Here’s the average conference wins per each spot in the standings the last couple years:

1st: B12 13.5, BE 16.0
5th: B12 10.5, BE 10.5
2nd: B12 12.0, BE 13.0
6th: B12 8.5, BE 8.5
7th: B12 8.0, BE 6.0
10th: B12 1.5, BE 3.5

Your 1st and 10th win more than their 1st and 10th. So your 7th place teams has more losses and gets left out.


#6 - In all this conversation, there’s principles and aspects of a configuration, and each is dependent on the membership. There’s excellent 10 team leagues like the Big East and Big 12. There’s also some really terrible 10-team leagues. There’s excellent and terrible 12 and 14 team leagues out there, too.

It’s not about “10 works for them, it can work for us,” because everyone is different. DePaul isn’t Texas Tech. Villanova isn’t Kansas. St Bonaventure isn’t Duke. Saint Louis isn’t Creighton. I’m not saying anyone’s better than anyone else: I’m saying they’re simply different.

In talking about both OOC Scheduling with the A-10 folks, recruiting with the Bona guys, expansion with Big East guys, expansion/realignment with the expansion/realignment board guys, I keep coming back to one thing: Herb Brooks quote when picking the 1980 US Hockey team. Told he was missing some of the best players, he said “I’m not looking for the best guys, I’m looking for the RIGHT ONES.”

Your OOC schedule shouldn’t be all against top 15 teams, because you’ll lose more games than you need to. Everyone basically wants an OOC schedule that if you go at least .333 vs Top 50 teams, .667 vs bubble/NIT teams and .950+ vs others, you’re dancing.

And the same “formula” holds true for your OVERALL schedule. But once you get to conference, there’s two problems.

#1 - The average Big East schedule has: 6 games vs Top 50, 10 games vs bubble/NIT, and 2 games vs others. Follow the formula and you’re at 2-4, 6-4, 2-0 and 10-8 Big East for a 3-6, 8-6, 7-0 = 18-12 if you have no bad losses. That’s a razor thin margin for error.

#2 - Everyone in the league can’t do that all at once. The 6 teams 4-9 in the Big East are gonna average 5-5 vs each other, and for every team that hits its mark, one can’t.

Add two teams at the bottom, and it’s a 5-8-5 ratio of Top-Bubble-Bottom. Now if the middle goes .500 vs each other, it’s: 1-4, 4-4, 5-0 = 10-8. A “bad loss” and you’re 9-9 in Big East play, 19-11 overall and still better off.

[JPSchmack]

Its an imprecise art that at its best creates a two-tier conference. At its worst, its awful.

Take a look at Dayton's schedule in the 14 member A-10. Here are the juggernauts they see twice: Duquesne, La Salle, St. Bonnies, Saint Louis and Rhode Island. Meanwhile, they missed out on: Davidson, GW, VCU, St. Josephs, UMASS and Richmond.

Dayton is arguably their best school and I could easily argue they have the exact opposite schedule you would hope for.

Aside from the fact that Bonaventure is 46 in the RPI, and Rhode Island was the preseason #2 team before their best player tore his ACL the first week of November…

The A-10 is one of 18 conferences with an unbalanced schedule, not unlike the Big Ten, ACC, Pac-12 and SEC. Obviously the difference is that the bottom of the A-10 has more bad teams than the bottom of those leagues (Although, the A-10 has been BETTER than at least one Power Conference in each of the last… half dozen years or so).

But when you don’t have 8, 9 or 10 teams (or 11 and an insane 20-game conference schedule like the MAAC), you have to go unbalanced.

The schedule model of an unbalanced league doesn’t necessarily create a tier system. The imbalanced could actually be used to create OR destroy tiers if you were so inclined.

I, personally, would favor using every available resource for the betterment of the league.
That includes: TV ratings, geography/travel concerns, scheduling/building rental ease, competitive balance and bid maximization.

With imbalance, you have the freedom to use those games to your advantage, something the old Big East and dozens of other conferences did for years. There’s a reason the SEC and Big 12 abandoned the division format for basketball before the last round of realignment: The divisions were not equals and it harmed at-large chances. And there’s nothing nefarious about acting in your own self interest.

What the A10 is doing is pure mid-major. Trying to pump up their teams with as many wins as possible....

What major conferences do is the logic that the AAC is using....
SMU, Cincy, UConn, and Tulsa all play each other 2x. If you add Temple to those 4- all play each other 2x except SMU and Temple miss each other a 2nd time. That's what the Big East would do. Trying to get the best matchups possible for TV and also limiting the impacts of weaker teams.

#1 - You can’t tell me what the A-10 “is doing.” What is their formula to get the 5 teams each team plays an extra time each year? Tell me. Lay it out for us.

If you think it’s padding wins for the top, then you don’t know what you’re talking about, because (a) you don’t know and (b) “padding the top” is simply not true.

#2 - That would also make 18 of the 32 conferences “mid-major.” As well as the old Big East.

#3 - How is the AAC logical and the A-10 not? The A-10’s system has NOTHING to do with standings. Here’s how it works:

Southern 5 teams (GW, Mason, VCU, Richmond, Davidson). They play each other 2x each; and need 1 more opponent each
Northeast 5 teams (URI, UMass, Fordham, SJU, LaSalle). They play each other 2x each; and need 1 more opponent.
Western 4 teams (SLU, UD, Duquesne, Bona). They play each other 2x each; and need 2 more opponents each

For the remaining games, they used a mix of geography/old rivals and common sense.
Bona vs SJU & UMass (all old A-10 East teams)
LAS vs Dayton; GW vs DUQ (all old A-10 West teams)

For the remaining games, they balanced both geography and strength. GMU is the only bottom half team in the South, Dayton is the only top half in the West; and A-10 geography has always been “West/South” vs “Northeast”

SLU vs VCU, GMU
DUQ vs GW, DC

That leaves Dayton, URI, Fordham and Richmond needed a 5th opponent. Fordham & URI can’t play three times.
UD’s opponents were weak, URI was picked second. That left Fordham-Richmond.

Out of 35 match-ups, FIVE were picked with the strength of cross-over opponents in mind, and four of them made geographic/rivalry sense already.



Your comparison of the A-10 to the American is ridiculous. For two reasons:
#1 - The 14 A-10 can only play five opponents twice. The 11 AAC teams can only miss two.

#2 - The American absolutely set their missed match-ups to fit the needs of their bubble teams. Geography of Temple missing SMU makes sense. But it sure doesn’t make sense for TV. The whole thing was orchestrated to try and give their 2-6 the best chances of at-large bids:

Preseason #2 UConn had plenty of good wins but a bad RPI last year, so they miss RPI killers ECU, USF
Preseason #3 Cincy misses PS #11 Tulane, who upset them last year; and RPI killer UCF.
Preseason #4 Tulsa misses PS #5 Memphis
Preseason #5 Memphis misses PS #4 Tulsa, who swept them last year
Preseason #6 Temple misses PS #1 SMU, who swept them last year.

[trephin]

JP, from reading your stuff, I can only conclude that you are a professional con man in the real world. You have consistently pushed the argument that the BE is capped at 6 bids in a 10 team league when they could get to 7-8 bids in a 12 team league.

He has always argued that the probability of a specific number of bids is significantly better or worse depending on the number of schools and not an absolute certainty as fair as I can recall.

Why is 7 of 12 better than 6 of 10?

It isn't. 6 of 10 = 60%. 7 of 12 = 58%.

8 of 12 (66%) is only fractionally better than 6 of 10, so no big gain there either.

His definition of better is the NCAA payouts directly related to each increased bid. He may or may not also suggest that conference perception to some people is related to the raw number of bids.

The 1-2 extra bids could just as easily go to the new teams, meaning no new bids for current members since the new members, now with increased resources, would compete as hard as they could to benefit from the new affiliation.

It's the old bait and switch. Take in the Sisters of the Poor so we can become doormats, only to find that this same Trojan Horse wants to kick our butts after they get inside the walls.

What you've ignored is the increased difficulty in rising to the top with increasing numbers. All of us Big East fans experienced that. When. There were 7-9 members in the '80's, PC and SH could both rise from the bottom to reach the F4 within the first decade of league competition. No one was locked in as a bottom feeder.

However, as the league grew to 12-16 members, it became a 2-tiered conference and it was next to impossible for those in the lower half to become competitive with those in the upper half. No one wants to go back to that. It's why so many are enamored with the idea of staying at 10. It's simply more competitive that way.

So added teams that are targeted to be in 11-13th place would either turn around and become more successful than the existing members or it would be too difficult to climb out of the cellar. Which one is it? The model he presents creates a new bottom upon which the rest stand on (specifically to the benefit of the middle class). The target teams should want to compete hard; the model just requires them to be unsuccessful IN conference play.

To make your proposition that it's a virtual mathematic impossibility for the 10 member BE to get 7 bids, you make this proposal following on the heels of a 2015 tournament in which the 10 member B12 actually got bids. In light of that reality, why do you think that anyone would actually buy your argument?

To the best of my memory he has never said it was 100% ... which "virtual" would be in agreement... There is space for outliers like 7 bids from a 10 team Big 12. His model presents a method to increase the probability of increased bids.

Either the math works or it doesn't.

If it does work, then the argument is whether the increased bids (payouts/possible increased prestige from raw number of bids) is more valuable than say conference public perception or rivalry building with double round robin.

FWIW, the 1998-99 Big East scheduled for 13 schools, 18 games, no divisions. However, they went to 16 games the next season and had 18 games with divisions the 3 prior seasons. (JP and sheg have proposed 13 team configuration to ease the loss of the double round robin)

edit: I didn't see JP's response prior to posting.

[DudeAnon]

JP, we get your theory, you don't have to re articulate it a thousand times.

[Xudash]

I'm very much on record as wanting the Big East to remain a 10 member conference.

i really am enjoying the round robin format, and I believe it will serve to help grow the strength of the conference and brand over time.

I enjoy the respect that the fan bases are showing one another. As just three examples, the Nova fans in the Pavilion were pure class when the Sumner injury took place. There is a thread on XH now focused on the classy nature of the Marquette fans who visited the Cintas Center yesterday. Xavier's game at Providence was simply electric, with some X fans commenting on what a great experience they had in Providence - the town - and at the game. It isn't always going to be unicorns and colored bubbles, nor can it be, but it is refreshing to mostly witness hard fought games that end in fan commentary that focuses more on the positive aspects of the competition than shots taken at opposing teams or fans.

I'm perfectly happy to witness this group of 10 achieve anywhere from 4 to 5 to 6 NCAA bids annually. Beyond the number of bids we achieve, I believe we are continuing to set ourselves up for deeper runs in the Tournament via seed positioning, and we're doing that based on the conference members' aggregate ability to recruit strongly, perform well in the OOC and navigate what is without question a brutal conference slate, which unlike weaker conferences, should typically get our teams fully ready for the Dance. Of course, seeding doesn't guaranty anything; match-ups and how well the game day meal went down have something to do with outcomes, but better seeding and battle tested teams can only help and not hurt.

It also is a fact that the Big East Presidents, Ackerman's Big East staff, Fox, and MSG are all very well aligned right now, and they like how the ship is sailing. IT'S WORKING. And, as a few have mentioned here, it isn't necessary to fix something that isn't broken.

With all that said, assuming JP's logic appeals to the Presidents someday, and assuming Fox is willing to "true-up" the media agreement to keep the 10 members at their $4.2 million distributions, why dilute? Why feed the bottom? If the Big East decides to add two - NOT FOUR - teams some day, add them AT THE TOP. Force the existing members to become even more competitive. DILUTION FOR THE SAKE OF MATHEMATICALLY ENGINEERING BIDS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO.

Another way of looking at it: assuming Fox was willing to true-up for 12 members or even still is willing to do that, it hasn't happened yet for the simple reason that there are no programs out there that meet the overall criteria for inclusion in the Big East. Gonzaga would be the exception were it not for the fact that it's two time zones away.

It all brings us back to a few simple, blunt realities:

1. The Big East, as reset to a ten member conference is working and working well.

2. If additions are to come, they'll more likely come from some presently unavailable crop of strong institutions with strong programs so as not to dilute the Big East.

3. Otherwise, if "+2" were so valued presently, it would have happened by now.

4. In order for it to happen eventually, the candidates are going to have to be damn good and make media sense; they won't be brought in as fodder.

I mentioned many pages ago that the Big East Presidents have the luxury of waiting when it comes to tinkering with their athletic conference. That becomes truer with each passing season.

[gtmoBlue]

As presently configured the BE can argue it will receive 4-6 NCAA bids a year, probably 5 most years. That is 1 to 3 bids less than our major conf competitors. That works out to $250k -$750k minimum left on the table each year. The value of a bid/ NCAA tourney game is rising, expecting to top $300k by 2020.

In 2013-14, 4 bids, 6 games.
2014-15, 6 bids, 10 games (1 SS team)
2015-16, ?? 5 bids, ?? 10 games (?? SS team)

Moving to a 12 or 13 team config as suggested with mid or bottom teams lifts at least 2, possibly 3 of our current middle teams into bid contention. More bids equals more free NCAA dollars and more opportunities for BE teams to impress, make a run, have a shot at the Championship. Bids and runs now define conferences. To willingly leave bids, money, and opportunity on the NCAA table is just plain stupid.

Exp: move to 12 teams by adding Dayton/SLU. UD would probably contend as a middle team most years, SLU would join the bottom for the foreseeable future.Current top 4: Nova-X-SH-Prov. G'twn,Cr8n would move up and Marq, Butl, would also benefit with potentially 2-4 more wins moving up leaving poss UD, SLU, DePaul, & SJU holding up the bottom. G'twn and CU get bids (with 4 more w's). Either Marq or Butler get a bid as well-potentially both benefit from the addt'l w's. The league increases from an avg of 5 bids to 7 ( an addt'l $500k min) a year.

In a 13 Tm config add 3: best avail top team (Zags, football 5 defector, etc.) and UD/SLU or Richmond/SLU or other suitable bottom team combo.

The league presidents are also known to like dollars. Perception is a heck of a thing...How long can we claim being a major when we "only" get 4-5 bids? In a given season majors get 6-9 bids and a mid major league may grab 4 bids. Like it or not conferences are defined in the public eye by the number of bids they receive. The Beast does itself a disservice by not adapting to maximize bid/dollar potentials. It is never a good idea to leave good money on the table.

As for logic some prefer to bring in 2 top dogs - crushing the current members - forcing them to improve...as though the current configuration doesn't force improvement. Ask DePaul, Prov, SH, and St John's how it currently works? Ask 'em about the Good ol' days in the old 16 team BE too. Bringing in all top dogs is no reward for the middle teams and cancels any progress they have made to date...and they have put Years of effort into improving. Adding middle & bottom or 2 bottom teams our mid tier teams get a reward (tourney bid) for improvements already made as well as future improvements.

Of course bottom teams want to compete, to improve, win. Incrementally and cyclicly they will over time. All teams cycle up and down. However, ask our 3 new members how great it is having a 10-fold increase in revenues - from $300-400k to $4 Mill. Any additional middle/bottom member(s) will weigh the dinars...and then ask where do they sign.

[Letsgonova]

That's ridiculous. By that logic, all conferences should be 18 teams so that they can claim to have the "most bids". Getting more teams in the tourney is great, but you also have two more mouths to feed, and--by force of mathematics--two more bad programs to carry. There is no money being left on the table, as the TV money would get diluted and those NCAA units you are craving won't compensate for both 2 more mouths and that dilution.

Also, no one, repeat NO ONE, judges the strength of the conference solely on the # of bids. Everyone is smart enough to realize that a 16 team league might get more in than a 10 team league. What matters is winning some games once you're in and playing to seed or better. That is where our league--my team most of all--has work to do.

You worry about being a mid-major? Nothing screams mid-major more than trying to add teams in the hopes of getting one more bid via some kind of scheduling shenanigans. Copying the AAC or A-10? C'mon. How about we just keep doing what we're doing: recruit head-to-head with the other power conferences, invest in coaches and facilities, schedule strong OOC slates and win 'em. The rest of this is loser talk.