Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[JPSchmack]

JP is alot like Sactowndog really. Both rant endlessly about the ails of the Big East and how we could so easily be saved by just adding their schools (Wichita St./St. Bonaventure).

Nothing ails the Big East as a whole, the conference performance and reputation is strong. I just think the configuration locks at least two members into under-performing because someone has to lose those conference games. So far it's been Marquette on the receiving end the most, with Georgetown as well.

And while I feel my school would be an outstanding choice to improve that situation, the principle would work/hold true with a variety of schools, because the teams that perform worse than what you'd want would suddenly have an extra couple million bucks to buy OOC home games with and all be behind the curve, so it would take them a long time to catch up infrastructure wise. There's not a lot of programs that could settle in to the perfect groove you want: Bringing OOC wins to the league and then finishing in the bottom third. Someone like Siena, Detroit, or Duquesne could quickly rise to become one of you because of the additional revenue a Big East schedule would give them: Duquense/Detroit could move into the hockey arena for most of their home schedule and generate a lot more revenue. Siena has the facility already. All the Bonaventure fans are just going to watch on TV from their homes in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, New York and everywhere else - making FS1/FS2 happy - while not rushing to Olean and increase gate revenue.

Anyone who says the Big East "has a problem that needs fixing" is silly and motivated by self interest. Advocating WSU, UD, or VCU to "make the league better" is viewing the board and saying "more checkers makes you stronger." This is chess. (Conference play is taking out your 7th and 8th place programs - a rook and a bishop - and leaving you with five or six pieces to attack with in March. You have two more pawns to be taken out by conference play instead, and you'd have 7 or 8 back row pieces to attack with in the NCAA Tournament.)

I mean, I LIKE Dayton, and thing they "belong" in the Big East. But adding Dayton or Wichita State helps Dayton and Wichita State, not the Big East. If you added one school like Dayton and two schools who'd absorb Big East losses (like Bona & Duquesne) and then you're probably helping the most original members. I'd game it all out in terms of "what's the best possible configuration" but it's insanely difficult because the biggest factor in getting 7, 8, 9 NCAA bids isn't WHO you add, it's WHO PLAYS WHO in an unbalanced schedule.

[JPSchmack]

This season, DePaul and St John's (and possibly GTown) will wind up being the league parts cars. That'll be enough.

And anyway, saying a team should add the Bonnies to be a parts car - when you have explicitly admitted your goal in admission would ultimately be to not be one after a few years - is disingenuous. But you're right, we've had this discussion before.

Well, "my goal" in the A-10 is also for us to be "Super-Gonzaga," crushing our inferior conference, rising to #1 in the polls, but pushing past the Elite 8 and into Final Fours and National Championships. How's that working out?

[trephin]

JP is alot like Sactowndog really. Both rant endlessly about the ails of the Big East and how we could so easily be saved by just adding their schools (Wichita St./St. Bonaventure).

That's a bit unfair. JP is nothing like Sactowndog. JP does not rundown any conference or school. He's got a strong belief in his theory but doesn't spam the board with it and usually he just has restated the theory in reply to a question about it. He is always respectful to other posters and, in my opinion, in no way does he exhibit any troll like behaviors.

[scoscox]

I do kind of agree with the logic that we'd probably be able to get a few more teams to the dance, but I'm not convinced there are any teams consistently good enough to make the cut. Wichita State maybe if Marshall is there long term, VCU will fade I think, and Dayton is always too up and down. With Archie they've improved, but who knows if he's there to stay. I could end up being wrong and those programs stick around and continue to improve, but that's how I see it right now.

[Edrick]

This is an honest question because it's always intrigued me, why do people think it makes sense to add teams to simply get (hypothetically) more teams in the tournament? (A flawed ascertain BTW)

It doesn't make any sense. If you increase your numerator and denominator proportionately, you don't gain, you just stay the same. It's an absurd premise.

The Big East will likely get 6 of 10 this season and has averaged 50% in its existence, there are no combination of teams that would make that percentage higher and 100% of the combinations screws up the harmony of the double-round-robin.

Expansion is not happening. The Big East is already one of the Top 3 leagues in the country annually. Just stop the nonsense

[stever20]

This is an honest question because it's always intrigued me, why do people think it makes sense to add teams to simply get (hypothetically) more teams in the tournament? (A flawed ascertain BTW)

It doesn't make any sense. If you increase your numerator and denominator proportionately, you don't gain, you just stay the same. It's an absurd premise.

The Big East will likely get 6 of 10 this season and has averaged 50% in its existence, there are no combination of teams that would make that percentage higher and 100% of the combinations screws up the harmony of the double-round-robin.

Expansion is not happening. The Big East is already one of the Top 3 leagues in the country annually. Just stop the nonsense

I don't think it's easy to say at all that the Big East will likely get 6 of 10 this season. For instance, if the standings are what is projected right now on Ken Pom, it would be 5. Marquette at 9-9 probably doesn't get in. If the standings are what's projected on RPI forecast, 4 becomes VERY possible.

Why getting 6 is so tough in 10 team while not as tough in 12 team is what record in conference play the 6th team gets. While 6th place in 10 team conference in the last 3 years of Big East, Big 12, and AAC has finished with more than 9 wins only once-
PAC 12-
2016- 6th place had 9 wins, but then so did 7th AND 8th. All 3 got into tourney. 8 teams at 9-9 or better
2015- 6th place had 9 wins, missed tourney. 6 teams at 9-9 or better.
2014- 6th place had 10 wins. part of a 5 way tie for 3rd. 9 teams at 9-9 or better
MAC-
2016- 6 teams finished with 10+ wins 8 teams 9-9 or better.
2015- 6 teams finished with 10+ wins 7 teams 9-9 or better.
2014- 6 teams finished with 10+ wins 6 teams 9-9 or better.
also OVC only plays 16 conference games- but last year had 6 teams with 10+ wins.
so in 4 of the 6 years of the P12/MAC- they had 6 teams with 10 wins. they averaged 7.33 teams per year with at least 9 wins.

[Bill Marsh]

This is an honest question because it's always intrigued me, why do people think it makes sense to add teams to simply get (hypothetically) more teams in the tournament? (A flawed ascertain BTW)

It doesn't make any sense. If you increase your numerator and denominator proportionately, you don't gain, you just stay the same. It's an absurd premise.

The Big East will likely get 6 of 10 this season and has averaged 50% in its existence, there are no combination of teams that would make that percentage higher and 100% of the combinations screws up the harmony of the double-round-robin.

Expansion is not happening. The Big East is already one of the Top 3 leagues in the country annually. Just stop the nonsense

Since you asked an honest question, I'll offer an honest answer.

1. I don't think adding more teams with the goal of getting more teams into the tournament is a good rationale. In fact, there's no guarantee that it will even deliver on that promise.

2. IMO the real driver in expansion is to increase interest in the conference and thereby to increase TV ratings with the ultimate goal of making more money for the conference.

3. Adding teams just for the sake of adding teams accomplishes nothing other than to water down the conference. They have to be the right teams. Every conference has its own criteria, but in the case of the BE they have to be programs with strong traditions, a strong fan base, and success on the court.

[gtmoBlue]

While he may have his motives, nonetheless JP is a welcome breath of fresh air on this board, IMHO. He is not a troll, nor a rabble rouser/pot stirrer. He has generally offered cogent and well thought out arguments for potential expansion - usually hinged on Bill's point: making more money for the conference (via dance bids).

As is known each bid is worth 1.6M over 6 years and is expected to grow to 1.8-2.0M by 2020. I have argued in the past that by not working the system the BE is leaving free money on the NCAA table, to the tune of at least .5M/year-3M over the 6 yr bid life (in 2020 - .6M/year-3.6M over bid life) with only 4 or 5 annual bids. Like TV money or Media Rights money, the NCAA bid pot money is another revenue stream for the conference and hopefully would be milked for all it's worth.

Without getting into the weeds, JP's (and the other guy who advocates 13 members) arguments have merit for genuine consideration.

[JPSchmack]

Thank you, trephine & gtmoBlue.

I’m also keeping this topic in this thread and not spamming OTHER threads, by dropping a “you’d get more bids with more teams!” in your discussion of projected NCAA bids for the league. (It would be nice to not need my posts approved, though. I have to repeat myself a lot because a few posts will go by before my posts show up backdated)

I do kind of agree with the logic that we'd probably be able to get a few more teams to the dance, but I'm not convinced there are any teams consistently good enough to make the cut. Wichita State maybe if Marshall is there long term, VCU will fade I think, and Dayton is always too up and down. With Archie they've improved, but who knows if he's there to stay. I could end up being wrong and those programs stick around and continue to improve, but that's how I see it right now.

This is the “checkers vs chess” thing to me. You list teams that have made NCAA Tournaments and advanced to Elite Eights/Final Fours as almost “good enough enough to make the cut.” But you should deconstruct what the ideal addition would be.

Bringing OOC wins into conference play is what makes your league strong. The better the league does overall, the stronger your SOS from conference games. Your 7th place team was 11-2 OOC last season, making them 19-13 on everyone’s SOS entering the BET. Marquette had six conference games vs teams worse than 19-13. My Bonnies played ELEVEN GAMES against conference teams with worse overall records, because the A-10 wasn’t as strong OOC (And we were still #27 in the RPI somehow!). That means Bona had SEVEN games vs teams better than 19-13 and Marquette had TWELVE.

I’m willing to bet you that most of this board thinks last year’s Marquette team could/would beat St. Bonaventure. And that’s my point here:
When people talk about a team being “good,” there’s two separate things working and they are frequently confused: “Quality/Talent of Roster” and “Performance in the season.” Performance is HEAVILY DICTATED by your schedule.

Last year’s Marquette & Creighton talent would be the same roster talent no matter who they play in conference:
If they played 18 games against the top nine teams in the nation, they’d have a terrible record.
If they played 14 games against the worst seven teams in the WCC, they’d have at least 13 conference wins, like Gonaga/BYU/Saint Mary’s does each year.
If they played in the Southland, they’d probably be 18-0 or 17-1.


The question of expansion for the Big East is not “who’s good enough” because THAT is a zero-sum game. The question is “Where’s the sweet spot for the max amount of NCAA bids/NCAA units earned, highest possible OOC win percentage (aka RPI/SOS) and not spreading the payouts from TV/NCAA money thin?”

This is an honest question because it's always intrigued me, why do people think it makes sense to add teams to simply get (hypothetically) more teams in the tournament? (A flawed ascertain BTW)

It doesn't make any sense. If you increase your numerator and denominator proportionately, you don't gain, you just stay the same. It's an absurd premise.

The Big East will likely get 6 of 10 this season and has averaged 50% in its existence, there are no combination of teams that would make that percentage higher and 100% of the combinations screws up the harmony of the double-round-robin.

In the conventional way people think about conference expansion, you’re totally right. That’s because conventional wisdom is “who’s good enough? If there’s another XAVIER out there…”

Because I don’t want to get into debates about the strength of non-Big East programs compared to Big East programs, I’m just going to use 2015-16 Big East teams as examples, because the NAMES don’t matter, only the principles.

Let’s say you cloned 2015-16 Xavier and had an 11-team (20-game DRR) Big East. Even though you’re adding an NCAA program that got a 2-seed last year (I believe, I kinda blacked out with rage when Bona was snubbed), are you really better off? You’d get Xavier2 into the dance, but they’d go 15-5 against the Big East, so the the non-clones would be 85-105. Would Butler still get into the dance at 10-10 in Big East play? Probably because they had a lot of room.

Same hypothetical 11-team, 20-game DRR. This time your 11th team is a clone of DePaul. DePaul2 is 4-16 in Big East, the non-clones are 106-94. Creighton is 11-9 in Big East play, sixth place. They play the 11 seed in the First Round of the Big East Tournament, get an extra win before losing to the 3 seed. On Selection Sunday, Creighton is 21-14 instead of 18-14. And based on the strength of the Big East, and their increased RPI, they probably get in:

Their win pct would go up with 3 more wins.
Their SOS would GO UP because the losses of DePaul2 count against Creighton’s SOS twice, but everyone’s WINS vs DePaul2 count on their SOS 18 other times.
Their Opponents SOS would go up because everyone else’s SOS went up, just like Creighton’s did.


Now, that hypothetical doesn’t “work” because the NCAA won’t let you add two games to everyone’s schedule. I just did it to illustrate a point and have less “what ifs.”

You’d have to abandoned the DRR with more teams, but that allows you to manipulate the imbalance of the schedule: your projected “middle third” teams always somehow miss having TWO games against all the top third teams, and seemingly always have “easier schedules” so that the entire middle third is around .500 in conference play.

You have EIGHT TEAMS now who should be in the top two “thirds” of your league. But with only 10 teams, it’s forcing teams like last year’s Creighton and Marquette to appear worse than their talent level. There’s only 90 Big East Wins to go around, the top three have to take a ton of those wins, and your 4-5-6-7-8 are dividing up about 40 to 45 Big East wins a year. So Creighton and Marquette couldn’t win enough to get an NCAA bid.

Like I said: Find the sweet spot. If on average, the Big East is going 9-3 each OOC, how many “bottom teams” and “middle teams” would you need to add to get 7 of 12, 8 of 12, 8 of 13 or 9 of 13 into the NCAA tournament frequently?

7 of 13 is 53.8% of the league. Which is higher than your average thus far (50%) and what it will be after you get six this year (52.5%). Because of the rate that 10 and 11 seeds pull upsets, getting two more bids (6th and 7th bids) in every year is basically 8 units every three years.

With 10 teams, 3 seasons, 23 units, you have averaged .767 units earned per team, per season.
With 13 teams, 3 seasons, 31 units, you’d have .795 units earned per team, per season. Which is more money for everyone.

And of course, you’re taking bids from someone else, increasing your standing compared to other leagues.


THAT’S why I think the way I do. And I’d think that way about you guys even if I went somewhere else, and not a school that happens to be perfect for that “bottom third” role.

[ArmyVet]

Nicely done. Some of the posters here have elevated this board into the next echelon of excellent sites to discuss sports.