Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[stever20]

I don't know that you'd get 7 every time with 12- but you would be pretty much guaranteed to get 5, and 6 very realistic.

The problem with 10 is that it's pretty easy to get only 4. I mean, even last year- Providence and Butler were only 10 spots in the tournament. That's not a huge margin for error there. Providence doesn't beat Nova, Butler loses a game or 2- and they're both pretty dicey.

In all 3 years- 5th place has finished with 8 losses. 6th place finished with 9 losses. So those schools are going to have to have a good OOC resume to overcome that many conference losses. Heck 4th place in 2 of the 3 years has finished with only 10 wins as well....

[David G]

I don't know that you'd get 7 every time with 12- but you would be pretty much guaranteed to get 5, and 6 very realistic.

The problem with 10 is that it's pretty easy to get only 4. I mean, even last year- Providence and Butler were only 10 spots in the tournament. That's not a huge margin for error there. Providence doesn't beat Nova, Butler loses a game or 2- and they're both pretty dicey.

In all 3 years- 5th place has finished with 8 losses. 6th place finished with 9 losses. So those schools are going to have to have a good OOC resume to overcome that many conference losses. Heck 4th place in 2 of the 3 years has finished with only 10 wins as well....

When you're talking about probability, you're not talking about something that will always happen. You're just talking about how likely something. The probability of getting a higher percentage of teams in goes down when you add more teams, and one of the reasons is it usually results in fewer games against good teams that are more winnable. (Does that make sense?) And, it also doesn't push the SOS portion of the power rankings up as much since you're not playing everyone twice. There are scenarios where you'll get more teams in, but more often than not you won't.

If you look at the bloated leagues, and the individual teams within them throughout the season, the numbers drop as they go through conference play, especially the second half of conference play. I don't think bracketologists are the end all, be all of anything, but most of them crunch numbers and power rankings when doing their seeds. The bloated leagues who don't play a balanced schedule have more teams drop out as the season progresses, whereas teams from a league like the Big East tend to play their way in because they're getting a boost from the SOS portion of the power rankings. Without that boost, is Butler even there? And, not only did it boost Butler, but it collectively boosted most of the league, which made Butler's wins (at least in terms of the basic power ratings) look better.

Now, is that going to happen all the time? No. Will it happen more often than not? Yes. n 2014-15, the BE had a lower OOC winning percentage than the ACC and Big Ten, but got a higher percentage of teams into the field. Last year the Pac Twelve got 7 in and the Big East only got 5 despite the percentages being very close, but that's due to something else. The Pac Twelve only plays 16 conference games, so they have more chances to inflate their numbers. Again, I think nine teams is the magic number because it's just the right amount of OOC games, and it's a double round robin, which will maximize the SOS in the power rankings.


Ummm, after typing this I'm kind of laughing at it. It probably doesn't make any sense. But, I'll just leave it with this. I have very strong reason to believe that going beyond ten and not playing a balanced schedule will result in a lower percentage of Big East teams getting in more often than not. I

[stever20]

if BE goes to 11, would go to 20 conference games.

Also- Pac 12 plays 18 conference games.

As far as Butler. They got in the tourney because of OOC basketball. 11-1 with wins over Purdue, Cincy, and NCAA tourney team Temple even. 10 conference wins yes- but 6 of them were Georgetown, DePaul, and St John's. 8 of the 10 wins vs non NCAA tourney teams.

Also, I wouldn't say that bloated leagues have more teams drop out. I mean, look at the big east 2011 as a prime example with 11 teams. For one, the Big East did a great job making sure that the good teams didn't see DePaul 2x. St John's last year did nothing to help the Big East schools. Lets say Big East was at 12 with say UConn and VCU. Lets say a bubble team like a Creighton instead of seeing St John's and DePaul 2x, played UConn and VCU once each. Wins over both would probably have propelled Creighton into the tourney. Or UConn and VCU get in themselves.

The thing 10 teams does is it puts a lot more pressure on the league in OOC play. 2014 the league wasn't good in OOC play, and the league had 4 teams make the tourney- 1 as an auto bid team(Providence) and another one as the 2nd team in the tourney(Xavier).

[David G]

Playing 20 games doesn't allow for enough OOC games to boost the power ratings as much as playing 16 or 18 does. Whenever you play a conference game half the teams lose. If you're winning more than half your OOC games, then you want to play more than nine of them. I still think you limit chances rather than creating more chances.

You mention the 2011 Big East. The league was awesome that year. Here's the thing, though. They won (I think) 80 percent of their OOC games, which was higher than what they normally win. They collectively played the 4th overall toughest OOC schedule. The only leagues that played tougher schedules were the SWAC, MEAC, and some other low level league that plays nothing but buy games against power conference team. No other decent or good conference was even close to playing a schedule that tough. On average, they won more OOC games against tournament teams than any other league even though they played two fewer OOC games than most other power leagues. I think it's safe to say that the league was better than typical, and when you're better than typical than what typical doesn't apply. Again, the whole probability thing.

Those are all anomalies. To win a higher percentage of games than anyone ever has (at least that I can remember) against the toughest schedule that any power conference has ever played is not a typical year, so I don't think you can point to that single sample size as being the norm. If anything, the percentage of teams that got in that year should have been higher than what it was. I also think that was the only time the BE managed to get more than half the teams in.

Look, for whatever reason I'm interested in things that aren't interesting to most people, and this is one of them. I didn't just wake up one day and decide that this is how I felt. I really did look at it closely. I think nine teams is the best number for a conference to have, and I think once you go beyond ten, whether you play a balanced schedule or not, the opportunities per team go down instead of up. We're probably not going to change each other's minds. But, can you give an example of a conference that expanded that OVER TIME (not just in one year) routinely sent a higher percentage of teams to the NCAAs than they did prior to expanding?

[stever20]

The Big East totally fits what you are saying...
2000-01 thru 2004-05 seasons- 27 bids in 5 years. 5.4 per year- with 0 years getting more than 6 bids.
2005-06 thru 2012-13 seasons- 65 bids in 8 years. 8.1 per year- with 2 years getting fewer than 8 bids.

The thing having a big league does is it allows a lot more teams to finish with winning conference records. Only twice in the 8 years of the Super Big East did the 8th place team finish with a .500 record.

Oh, and the 2011 Big East didn't even have the top OOC winning percentage that year.

[David G]

if BE goes to 11, would go to 20 conference games.

Also- Pac 12 plays 18 conference games.

I stand corrected on this. I was counting the number of OOC games and all but one of the teams played in an exempt tournament, which gave all of them 13 OOC games, which helped push the power rankings since they won so many of them. When I saw they all played 13 I assumed (wrongly) that they played 16 league games.

[David G]

The Big East totally fits what you are saying...
2000-01 thru 2004-05 seasons- 27 bids in 5 years. 5.4 per year- with 0 years getting more than 6 bids.
2005-06 thru 2012-13 seasons- 65 bids in 8 years. 8.1 per year- with 2 years getting fewer than 8 bids.

The thing having a big league does is it allows a lot more teams to finish with winning conference records. Only twice in the 8 years of the Super Big East did the 8th place team finish with a .500 record.

Oh, and the 2011 Big East didn't even have the top OOC winning percentage that year.

The trade off to that is that it creates more teams with overall records of .500 or worse, and depending on how the schedule plays out, more games against them. And, generally, that's the anchor. The teams with poorer overall records are generally the poorer teams on the court. The teams that play more home and homes against the weaker teams will have an easier time winning more games. But, they won't be getting the power ratings boost from it. So, what you have is teams landing higher in the standings that got there because they played weaker teams. They're being pulled down by the weaker teams that they played twice, and they're not pushing the good teams forward that they only played once. (at least not as much as they would have).

And, again, that's just in general. It's not every year. There are years where an 11 team league could get eight or nine teams in if everything plays out right, and years a 9 team conference may only send one. But, if all things are the same, a single division league that plays 13 OOC games and wins the vast majority of them will push itself forward more.

[stever20]

The Big East totally fits what you are saying...
2000-01 thru 2004-05 seasons- 27 bids in 5 years. 5.4 per year- with 0 years getting more than 6 bids.
2005-06 thru 2012-13 seasons- 65 bids in 8 years. 8.1 per year- with 2 years getting fewer than 8 bids.

The thing having a big league does is it allows a lot more teams to finish with winning conference records. Only twice in the 8 years of the Super Big East did the 8th place team finish with a .500 record.

Oh, and the 2011 Big East didn't even have the top OOC winning percentage that year.

The trade off to that is that it creates more teams with overall records of .500 or worse, and depending on how the schedule plays out, more games against them. And, generally, that's the anchor. The teams with poorer overall records are generally the poorer teams on the court. The teams that play more home and homes against the weaker teams will have an easier time winning more games. But, they won't be getting the power ratings boost from it. So, what you have is teams landing higher in the standings that got there because they played weaker teams. They're being pulled down by the weaker teams that they played twice, and they're not pushing the good teams forward that they only played once. (at least not as much as they would have).

And, again, that's just in general. It's not every year. There are years where an 11 team league could get eight or nine teams in if everything plays out right, and years a 9 team conference may only send one. But, if all things are the same, a single division league that plays 13 OOC games and wins the vast majority of them will push itself forward more.

actually that's not right.
2005-06 thru 2012-13- 35 .500 or worse overall teams in 8 years. so 4.4 per year.
2000-01 thru 2004-05- 20 .500 or worse overall teams in 5 years. So 4.0 per year.
(2000-01-2004-05 had 14 teams in 1st 4 years, 12 5th year).
So really your claim is pretty much wrong.

As far as your claim that having a bigger league means more games against bad teams- nope. Big thing was that teams didn't have to see a team like a DePaul twice. Which helps with the RPI.

I'll take the 16 team league any day that gets 8.1 teams into the tourney with 4.4 losing teams vs a 14 team league with 5.4 teams into the tourney with 4.0 losing teams.

[David G]

The Big East totally fits what you are saying...
2000-01 thru 2004-05 seasons- 27 bids in 5 years. 5.4 per year- with 0 years getting more than 6 bids.
2005-06 thru 2012-13 seasons- 65 bids in 8 years. 8.1 per year- with 2 years getting fewer than 8 bids.

The thing having a big league does is it allows a lot more teams to finish with winning conference records. Only twice in the 8 years of the Super Big East did the 8th place team finish with a .500 record.

Oh, and the 2011 Big East didn't even have the top OOC winning percentage that year.

The trade off to that is that it creates more teams with overall records of .500 or worse, and depending on how the schedule plays out, more games against them. And, generally, that's the anchor. The teams with poorer overall records are generally the poorer teams on the court. The teams that play more home and homes against the weaker teams will have an easier time winning more games. But, they won't be getting the power ratings boost from it. So, what you have is teams landing higher in the standings that got there because they played weaker teams. They're being pulled down by the weaker teams that they played twice, and they're not pushing the good teams forward that they only played once. (at least not as much as they would have).

And, again, that's just in general. It's not every year. There are years where an 11 team league could get eight or nine teams in if everything plays out right, and years a 9 team conference may only send one. But, if all things are the same, a single division league that plays 13 OOC games and wins the vast majority of them will push itself forward more.

actually that's not right.
2005-06 thru 2012-13- 35 .500 or worse overall teams in 8 years. so 4.4 per year.
2000-01 thru 2004-05- 20 .500 or worse overall teams in 5 years. So 4.0 per year.
(2000-01-2004-05 had 14 teams in 1st 4 years, 12 5th year).
So really your claim is pretty much wrong.

As far as your claim that having a bigger league means more games against bad teams- nope. Big thing was that teams didn't have to see a team like a DePaul twice. Which helps with the RPI.

I'll take the 16 team league any day that gets 8.1 teams into the tourney with 4.4 losing teams vs a 14 team league with 5.4 teams into the tourney with 4.0 losing teams.

The Big East was not in a single division format where they played a balanced schedule in any of those seasons, so I don't know what you're talking about.

In a single division format where the league played a balanced schedule, this is what the Big East has done since the field went to a 64 team format...

85 - 6/9
86 - 4/9
87 - 5/9
88 - 6/9
89 - 5/9
90 - 6/9
91 - 7/9
92 - 5/10
93 - 3/10
94 - 6/10
95 - 4/10
2014 - 4/10
15 - 6/10
16 - 5/10

Overall, that's 54 percent of the teams making the field, and more than half the teams in eight out of fourteen seasons.


Now here there are in a bloated and unbalanced format

96 - 5/13
97 - 4/13
98 - 5/13
99 - 5/13
2000 - 5/13
01 - 5/14
02 - 6/14
03 - 4/14
04 - 6/14
05 - 6/12
06 - 8/16
07 - 6/16
08 - 8/16
09 - 7/16
10 - 8/16
11 - 11/16
12 - 9/16
13 - 8/16

116/261. That's 44 percent in a non balanced format where you only got more than half the teams in twice.


Is that not definitive enough for you??

Even if people don't understand "why" then they should at least be able to understand "what." Not a single power conference that moved away from a single division double round robin format ended up getting a higher percentage of teams in the NCAA Tournament after they did it. Not one. Now, there have been single outlying seasons where they have gotten more, but over time they have not. And, they won't. On top of that, the Big Twelve started getting a higher percentage of teams in AFTER they went to a single division double round robin format. That has to tell you something. Expansion beyond a nine or ten team single division with a double round robin makes sense for football. It makes no sense for basketball. None. Well, at least not from a performance or power ratings standpoint.

[stever20]

You can not compare how the tourney was selected from 85-91 and the way it's selected now. It's not remotely close at all whatsoever. And that's how you are basing a lot of your argument on. Also you're basing a lot of your argument in a time frame where players were staying for 3-4 years. Pretty close to not even the same sport as back then.

Also the 7 years that the BE had 10 teams- all of 33 bids. With 2 years of more than half. The 8 years the BE had 15-16 teams- 65 bids- with 3 years more than half(2013 had 15 teams as WVU was gone).

With 10 teams, you have to do pretty well to have your 5th and 6th place teams make the tourney- because they are going to have 8-9 conference losses almost guaranteed. I mean- in the 7 10 team Big East Era- the 5th place team has never had more than 10 wins. Twice with 9 wins. 6th place finished with 10 wins twice- but then 7 wins once. And looking- only Xavier finished at 9-9 in the 10 team era and made the tourney.

The danger with 10 teams is having a year like 1993 where there was a 4 way tie for 4th at 9-9. None of those teams made the tournament. Odds are pretty good that if the league had 12, you get at least 1 more if not 2 more.