Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[DudeAnon]

The problem with gaming the system is there are no guarantees that teams are going to behave as you expect. Also there are no guarantees that the committee is going to behave (SBU had an RPI of 30 last year and was still left out.) Expansion should only be done if there is a program that is consistently competitive at a high level and has a good brand. After that you let the chips lay where they may.

When NBE was formed they could've added more mid-tier schools to inflate their records but they went with the best available schools. And luckily they did because without the 3 new schools this conference would be dismissed entirely.

[gtmoBlue]

The problem with gaming the system is there are no guarantees that teams are going to behave as you expect. Also there are no guarantees that the committee is going to behave (SBU had an RPI of 30 last year and was still left out.) Expansion should only be done if there is a program that is consistently competitive at a high level and has a good brand. After that you let the chips lay where they may.

When NBE was formed they could've added more mid-tier schools to inflate their records but they went with the best available schools. And luckily they did because without the 3 new schools this conference would be dismissed entirely.

Your 1st paragraph is not quite accurate... 1st JP's example of Xavier2 and DePaul2 outline precisely how the other major conferences operate and how we would optimally operate with more members. Folks wonder how the B1G, ACC get so many bids-this is how its' done.

There ARE guarantees - we see them every March as the bigger sized conferences have followed JP's outline to a "T" and routinely get 6-9 bids annually. The middle teams only play the top teams once per year, while the bottom plays everyone in top/middle twice.

He also explained the issues with only obtaining "the best available" teams...as they will not lift your middle tier into the dance, whereas 1 or more bottom tier teams (rising tide) will lift all teams above them with 1-2 more W's. If StL and Richmond had been added originally - Creighton and Marquette would've danced last season with those 4 additional W's. All of our top & middle teams would've added 2 to 4 more w's to their records. No harm done and 7 teams in the dance.

Your paragraph 2...is now our collective history. This debate is not about rewriting the record book or recent history. This conversation is about elevating our collective competitiveness irt getting more NCAA bids and receiving more money from that particular revenue stream.


Moderators/Admin: Please unshackle JPSchmack's account. He is no Stever, no troll. His inputs are very germane to this particular thread, and with his hands untied, perhaps in other threads. You - as the power brokers here, can always put the cuffs back on should JP, Stever, gtmoBlue get totally out of hand.

[kayako]

Not Big East related news, but apparently Wichita State may be joining the AAC...

http://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/sources ... ition-aac/

If true, this makes AAC more interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that a number of schools in that conference wants out.

[Hall2012]

The problem with gaming the system is there are no guarantees that teams are going to behave as you expect. Also there are no guarantees that the committee is going to behave (SBU had an RPI of 30 last year and was still left out.) Expansion should only be done if there is a program that is consistently competitive at a high level and has a good brand. After that you let the chips lay where they may.

When NBE was formed they could've added more mid-tier schools to inflate their records but they went with the best available schools. And luckily they did because without the 3 new schools this conference would be dismissed entirely.

What's more is that the Big East showed they didn't want to play that game in breaking off to begin with. The C7 schools had an opportunity to inflate their records by feasting on the likes of East Carolina, Navy, USF, and Tulane every year, but opted to break off because that's exactly what they didn't want to do. The whole point of breaking off was to form a strong basketball conference where everyone is competitive top to bottom, and we're almost there. There's no benefit to adding more deadwood to the bottom of the conference.

[FDS]

Not Big East related news, but apparently Wichita State may be joining the AAC...

http://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/sources ... ition-aac/

If true, this makes AAC more interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that a number of schools in that conference wants out.

Where would the rest of Wichita State's sports go? Surely the MVC wouldn't allow them to stay if Basketball leaves...

[stever20]

Not Big East related news, but apparently Wichita State may be joining the AAC...

http://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/sources ... ition-aac/

If true, this makes AAC more interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that a number of schools in that conference wants out.

Where would the rest of Wichita State's sports go? Surely the MVC wouldn't allow them to stay if Basketball leaves...

it would be everything.

It would further separate the AAC from the other conferences... I mean, if this was this season, the AAC would have right now 3 top 50 and 6 top 100 in the RPI- and in Ken Pom 3 top 50 and 8 top 100. So it would be possible for a top team if they got scheduled right to only play 4 KP sub 100 teams in conference play then. Huge advantage.

[Bill Marsh]

The problem with gaming the system is there are no guarantees that teams are going to behave as you expect. Also there are no guarantees that the committee is going to behave (SBU had an RPI of 30 last year and was still left out.) Expansion should only be done if there is a program that is consistently competitive at a high level and has a good brand. After that you let the chips lay where they may.

When NBE was formed they could've added more mid-tier schools to inflate their records but they went with the best available schools. And luckily they did because without the 3 new schools this conference would be dismissed entirely.

Your 1st paragraph is not quite accurate... 1st JP's example of Xavier2 and DePaul2 outline precisely how the other major conferences operate and how we would optimally operate with more members. Folks wonder how the B1G, ACC get so many bids-this is how its' done.

There ARE guarantees - we see them every March as the bigger sized conferences have followed JP's outline to a "T" and routinely get 6-9 bids annually. The middle teams only play the top teams once per year, while the bottom plays everyone in top/middle twice.

He also explained the issues with only obtaining "the best available" teams...as they will not lift your middle tier into the dance, whereas 1 or more bottom tier teams (rising tide) will lift all teams above them with 1-2 more W's. If StL and Richmond had been added originally - Creighton and Marquette would've danced last season with those 4 additional W's. All of our top & middle teams would've added 2 to 4 more w's to their records. No harm done and 7 teams in the dance.

Sounds good in theory. The problem is it's not true. The bigger sized conferences do NOT "routinely get 6-9 bids annually." They just don't. Here's the history of the bigger conferences over the last 5 years, going back to 2012 when they all had 12 members while growing to their present size since then. The Big 12 has had 10 for all 5 years and the Big East 10 for 3 years. The number in parentheses is the total number of bids for the 5 year period, followed by the number per year starting with the most recent (2016).

B1G (33) - 7-7-6-7-6
ACC (28) - 7-6-6-4-5
P12 (24) - 7-4-6-5-2
SEC (18) - 3-5-3-3-4

B12 (32) - 7-7-7-5-6
BEC (15) - 5-6-4 -(8)-(9)

I think the numbers speak for themselves. Glaring is the fact that the SEC has never gotten as many as 6, no one has gotten more than 7, and the Big 12 (a 10 member league) has the second most bids for the 5 years. They and the B1G are the only ones who have averaged as many as 6 bids per year.

The fact is that strong conferences like the old Big East will get a lot of bids because they are strong conferences. Conferences with numbers will not get a lot of bids solely on the basis of numbers. (See SEC.) It's the big 12 and the Big East who have been securing bids for half their member or more. The 4 other football conferences have fallen below half their membership for the 5 years.

[Bill Marsh]

Not Big East related news, but apparently Wichita State may be joining the AAC...

http://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/sources ... ition-aac/

If true, this makes AAC more interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that a number of schools in that conference wants out.

The fact that someone brought it up at a meeting and that coaches favor the move means little about whether or not they are a serious candidate.

Adding Wichita State would be an extremely foolish move for the AAC. While it would address their need to improve basketball, it would compound the mistake of adding Tulsa by going into a less populated part of the country and by failing to address the isolation of UConn and Temple. A much smarter move would be to add VCU. This would add another strong basketball program but it would do so in a big market. VCU would provide a complement to Navy in the Chesapeake area, giving fans in that region a reason to follow the AAC for all sports all year. Finally it would add another program within reasonable travel distance of UConn and Temple on the Eastern corridor.

[stever20]

your numbers are right- but lets look at the last 3 years- since the moves got made...
B1G (20) - 7-7-6
ACC (19) - 7-6-6
P12 (17) - 7-4-6
SEC (11) - 3-5-3

B12 (21) - 7-7-7
BEC (15) - 5-6-4

10 team leagues are great- if your total conference winning pct is great... lets look at Big 12 and Big East last 3 years...
2014- BE 94-31 .752 B12 98-26 .790
2015- BE 94-31 .752 B12 103-22 .824
2016- BE 95-30 .760 B12 103-23 .818
ty17- BE 77-24 .762 B12 76-17 .817(remember they still have that SEC challenge upcoming so that's why they have 8 fewer games right now)
that and only that is why the B12 is getting 7 teams in. You get a lot of great 50% marks.

But what raw numbers do is give you more chances. see last year ACC as a prime example.

[stever20]

Not Big East related news, but apparently Wichita State may be joining the AAC...

http://www.fanragsports.com/cbb/sources ... ition-aac/

If true, this makes AAC more interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that a number of schools in that conference wants out.

The fact that someone brought it up at a meeting and that coaches favor the move means little about whether or not they are a serious candidate.

Adding Wichita State would be an extremely foolish move for the AAC. while it would address their need to improve basketball, it would compound the mistake of adding Tulsa by going into a less populated part of the country and by failing to address the isolation of UConn and Temple. A much smarter move would be to add VCU. This would add another strong basketball program but it would do so in a big market. VCU would provide a complement to Navy in the Chesapeake area, giving fans in that region a reason to follow the AAC for all sports all year. Finally it would add another program within reasonable travel distance of UConn and Temple on the Eastern corridor.

here is the thing about that though. If they go to 12, UConn for instance would not have to go to say Tulane and USF every year. The question would be is UConn aboard with this now that they're in the AAC long term. If so, that would be huge.