Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[David G]

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.

Things have been tweaked in terms of how all the data is tabulated, but the data that the selection committee looks at, and the procedure itself, has been pretty much the same since 1981. Some ADs and commish's that were on committees back then are still in athletics today, and if you see them at NACDA conventions and see people who have been on the committee recently, they seem to think that it's more similar than it is different. I don't think anyone would say that it's not even remotely close. What's changed isn't so much the data as the level of communication they now have throughout the season, and the number of games that they're expected to watch and report on in addition to crunching the data. And, of course the field has expanded, so, there's that. But, how teams are evaluated hasn't changed all that much. The number of upperclassmen a team has isn't going to change how the data will behave, so I really don't know what that has to do with anything.

The RPI went through some adjustments before getting to the current 25-50-25 format (that now weights home and away games), but because it's more weighted toward SOS now, it actually makes what I'm saying more true today than it was back then. But, okay, let's look at the ACC then since your date of 1991. It's probably better to look at them since they stayed with a nine team format (which I think is the ideal size) for a longer period.

91 - 6/8
92 - 5/9
93 - 6/9 (it was either this year or the following year that the RPI went from 40-40-20 to 25-50-25, but even prior to this it was used to sort the data for the commitee the same way it is today)
94 - 5/9
95 - 4/9
96 - 6/9
97 - 6/9
98 - 5/9
99 - 3/9
2000 - 3/9
01 - 6/9
02 - 4/9
03 - 4/9
04 - 6/9

Overall, that's 55 percent

Here's what they did after changing

05 - 6/11
06 - 4/12
07 - 7/12
08 - 4/12
09 - 7/12
10 - 6/12
11 - 4/12
12 - 5/12
13 - 4/12
14 - 6/15
15 - 6/15
16 - 7/15 (although Louisville would have been fair, so 8/15)

That comes out to 44 percent.

The difference is pretty much the same as it was for the Big East. And, it's not like they added crappy programs.

Having 11 teams and going to a true round robin format like you said the BE would do would mean taking away a total of 20 OOC games from what you currently play. For a conference that collectively wins more than 70 percent of their OOC games, that will collectively lower your winning percentage because you can only win fifty percent of your conference games. That will lower your power ratings, and lower your overall SOS. Nine is better than ten, but ten is better than eleven, or twelve, or more.

You keep bringing up what the Big East did as a sixteen team conference as opposed to 12, 13, and 14. Well, that's true, but what's also true is that there aren't six teams out there that are of the caliber of Louisville, Syracuse, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, West Virginia, and Pitt that could be added to get to sixteen. UConn is out there, but who else? I can't deny that they did better at sixteen than they did with less than that after they got away from a single division format. But, going to sixteen now would mean adding teams that aren't nearly as good as the ones that are no longer there.

[stever20]

there have been 6 14 loss teams in the NCAA tourney at large since 1985. Of those 6, 4 happened between 1987-1991. Another in 2001. Only Arizona 2008 bucked that. And Nova twice in a row got in with 14 losses in 90 and 91....So that's a pretty big change there.

also losing conference teams don't get in as much any more...
85- 1 team
86- 1 team
87- 1 team
88- 2 teams
89 1 team
90- 2 teams
91- 3 teams
so from 85 to 91- 11 teams with losing records made the tourney. Since 1991, only 20 teams with losing conference records made the tourney.

So those 2 things are pretty big indicators that they aren't choosing those teams that were getting in before like 1991 Villanova who at 7-9 and 17-14 made the tournament. 2014 Georgetown back in the day would have gotten into the tourney pretty easily.....

As far as the RPI- it's never been 40/40/20 as far as I know.

Now, I do think we're going back to a period where the committee is looking at bigger wins far more than before. I mean, that's how Syracuse got in last year for instance. It'll be something to really watch the next few years- because last year was a huge change in selection philosophy.

I just personally think a 10 team conference runs the risk of a year like 1993 where 4th place finished in a 4 way tie at 9-9. None of those teams made the tourney.

Also you have the misnomer that a win is always better than a loss in the RPI That is just totally incorrect. It's better to lose to a top 100 team often times than it is to beat a sub 300 team OOC- at least in terms of the RPI.

[David G]

Didn't the 1990-1991 Nova team have something like four wins away from home against top ten teams? They did something that was crazy. It's rare that even a #1 seed has that many wins against teams ranked that high. So, it kind of cancels itself out and makes sense that they got in. That one was too long ago for me to really remember, but there was something about them that made them getting in not so surprising. Teams with 14 losses typically don't get in, but teams with that many wins away from home against highly ranked teams typically aren't left out.

[SJHooper]

Let's be honest here. If UConn were to join, they would be back in the top 25 consistently if they do it soon. If they keep waiting years and years, even their storied basketball program will become irrelevant to match football. So assuming they join, that gives each Big East team 2 more scheduled games against a top 25 opponent. Back in the old Big East, you had much more room for error. You could lose 3 games in a row but then win 3 of your next 4 against ranked teams and get back on track. Having the opportunity to consistently play plenty of ranked teams is crucial. Each ranked team would give 2 chances to beat a ranked team for all the others. So I would assume Nova, Xavier, UConn would be in the top 25 pretty consistently year after year. Right now only Nova and Xavier can say they are basically almost always a top 25 team. UConn brings another perennial ranked team.

It would be stupid for UConn to say no. They need us more than we need them. They are losing $20 mil/ year from football and they are obviously not going to join the Big 12. Word has been that they will NOT stay put in the AAC. If so, the only other option is here and they will park football. If they DO stay put in the AAC for 7 years or whatever, they will be such a watered down brand, they won't even have the same prestige in basketball. Recruits don't want to play against East Carolina and Tulane. They want to play storied programs with name brands, prestige, and big stages on national TV every game.

[Omaha1]

Let's be honest here. If UConn were to join, they would be back in the top 25 consistently if they do it soon.

I'm not sure why the east coast schools that recruit against UCONN would want that.

[Bill Marsh]

Let's be honest here. If UConn were to join, they would be back in the top 25 consistently if they do it soon. If they keep waiting years and years, even their storied basketball program will become irrelevant to match football. So assuming they join, that gives each Big East team 2 more scheduled games against a top 25 opponent. Back in the old Big East, you had much more room for error. You could lose 3 games in a row but then win 3 of your next 4 against ranked teams and get back on track. Having the opportunity to consistently play plenty of ranked teams is crucial. Each ranked team would give 2 chances to beat a ranked team for all the others. So I would assume Nova, Xavier, UConn would be in the top 25 pretty consistently year after year. Right now only Nova and Xavier can say they are basically almost always a top 25 team. UConn brings another perennial ranked team.

It would be stupid for UConn to say no. They need us more than we need them. They are losing $20 mil/ year from football and they are obviously not going to join the Big 12. Word has been that they will NOT stay put in the AAC. If so, the only other option is here and they will park football. If they DO stay put in the AAC for 7 yxears or whatever, they will be such a watered down brand, they won't even have the same prestige in basketball. Recruits don't want to play against East Carolina and Tulane. They want to play storied programs with name brands, prestige, and big stages on national TV every game.

Storied programs like St John's?

[Bill Marsh]

Didn't the 1990-1991 Nova team have something like four wins away from home against top ten teams? They did something that was crazy. It's rare that even a #1 seed has that many wins against teams ranked that high. So, it kind of cancels itself out and makes sense that they got in. That one was too long ago for me to really remember, but there was something about them that made them getting in not so surprising. Teams with 14 losses typically don't get in, but teams with that many wins away from home against highly ranked teams typically aren't left out.

Three. Two over Syracuse and one over St. John's.

[SJHooper]

Sorry Bill, you're right. Tulane, East Carolina, and SMU are more storied than St. John's. Silly me.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Let's be honest here. If UConn were to join, they would be back in the top 25 consistently if they do it soon. If they keep waiting years and years, even their storied basketball program will become irrelevant to match football. So assuming they join, that gives each Big East team 2 more scheduled games against a top 25 opponent. Back in the old Big East, you had much more room for error. You could lose 3 games in a row but then win 3 of your next 4 against ranked teams and get back on track. Having the opportunity to consistently play plenty of ranked teams is crucial. Each ranked team would give 2 chances to beat a ranked team for all the others. So I would assume Nova, Xavier, UConn would be in the top 25 pretty consistently year after year. Right now only Nova and Xavier can say they are basically almost always a top 25 team. UConn brings another perennial ranked team.

It would be stupid for UConn to say no. They need us more than we need them. They are losing $20 mil/ year from football and they are obviously not going to join the Big 12. Word has been that they will NOT stay put in the AAC. If so, the only other option is here and they will park football. If they DO stay put in the AAC for 7 years or whatever, they will be such a watered down brand, they won't even have the same prestige in basketball. Recruits don't want to play against East Carolina and Tulane. They want to play storied programs with name brands, prestige, and big stages on national TV every game.

They are 3 years removed from a NC and continue to recruit at a very high level. UCONN BB won't lose relevancy any time soon IMO. Is the BE a better spot for BB than the AAC? Without question. Would a rekindling of those old BE rivalries give both UCONN and the BE a boost? Without question. I know their fans cringe at the thought of playing some of those teams and going to those conference tourneys, while we enjoy the bright lights of Broadway. I hope it shakes out definitively that they don't get an invite to a P5 conf, and the writing is on the wall for them to look elsehwere. I would LOVE having them back in the conference, for purely my college BB fandom experience. I know this argument seems split among the new conference mates and old, but having a program like UCONN makes us better and games more interesting. Adding Dayton, St. Louis or anyone not named Gonzaga provides little excitement to me.

[stever20]

I just LOL at folks who think if UConn stayed in the AAC that they would become irrelevant. I mean, look at freaking Gonzaga who folks want to have come. The WCC minus Gonzaga is total garbage compared to the AAC minus UConn. But that's not hurt Gonzaga 1 bit, now has it? And it won't UConn. UConn wasn't a top 25 team last year not because of the AAC, but rather that UConn lost 6 of 7 AAC games against either NCAA tourney teams or SMU. They win some of those, UConn is totally a top 25 team. It's got nothing to do with the AAC.

and look at the recruiting ratings for UConn....
2017- 13 so far
2016- 8
2015- 39
2014- 44

And they've gotten some big time transfers.

If anything, recruiting has improved for UConn. So guess that makes the statement that recruits don't want to play against East Carolina or Tulane- kind of moot.