20 conference games

[billyjack]

The NYE Marathon shifting due to the CFP is really the only time the Big East has adjusted based on outside factors (of course I resisted moving off NYE, though I can understand the logic behind it)... and like Redman said, the CFB is moving off NYE in the future anyway, and we can return to it. Generally, we've designed our conference and made decisions based on our own preferences.

And that should always be our goal. We're the innovators and smart decision makers. We decide, period, based on us. If some other conference makes changes, we're not in the business of running around with our hair on fire looking to copy them... especially when there is no logical reason have to go to 20 games. "Hey, look! Coach K and Roy Williams have decided to wear freakin stovepipe hats next season...! The Pac-12 is looking to do the same thing...! It's only a matter of time before all hoops coaches are wearing stovepipe hats... The Big East has got to change too, cuz this isn't the 80's anymore...!!!"

With the 20 game thing:
- for the ACC maybe, it maybe can maybe strengthen their SOS... except for the poor midpack team that adds 6-24 Boston College or 9-22 Wake to their schedule, in which case it hurts them... and except for the midpack team that adds a home game vs Duke, so adds a home loss and its 1.4-negative-value to its RPI... and except for two midpack semi-bubble teams that will hand each other losses.

- for any conference that stays at 18, it allows them to keep 13 non-conference games... so, they can retain 2 non-conference games against solid opponents... more flexibility.

- the main reason the ACC is going to 20 games is because in 3 years they are supposed to get their own network, finally (5 to 10 years too late, and even though ESPN is their sugar daddy), so they can add content to fill timeslots... the ACC is spinning this (poorly) in terms of RPI, when instead it's about their network... note that we already have our own network in FS1.

- the main reason the Big XII is looking to add 2 more teams is to guarantee a spot in the CFB playoff... so instead of just expanding the CFB to 6 teams, they will add 2 teams? Poor decision making, in my opinion.

- having said all this, I really have no problem with 20 games. It's just that the way we're designed, 18 is our number. If we add 1 team (Gonzaga, UConn, Dayton, VCU, Saint Louis, Holy Cross, San Francisco... ) ...), then 20 will work fine. I thought we had a thread somewhere that discussed the pro's and con's of 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 games, but I can't find it.

[add-on: in the 18 game round robin/ unbalanced schedule discussion, someone here argued that a non-round-robin was better for conferences like the AAC and A-10, because VCU and Dayton could avoid 2 games vs Fordham, as opposed to the Big East which had to always play DePaul, etc... anyway...]

[stever20]

The NYE Marathon shifting due to the CFP is really the only time the Big East has adjusted based on outside factors... and like Redman said, the CFB is moving off NYE in the future anyway, and we can return to it. Generally, we've designed our conference and made decisions based on our own preferences.

And that should always be our goal. We're the innovators and smart decision makers. We decide, period, based on us. If some other conference makes changes, we're not in the business of running around with our hair on fire looking to copy them... especially when there is no logical reason have to go to 20 games. "Hey, look! Coach K and Roy Williams have decided to wear freakin stovepipe hats next season...! The Pac-12 is looking to do the same thing...! It's only a matter of time before all hoops coaches are wearing stovepipe hats... The Big East has got to change too, cuz this isn't the 80's anymore...!!!"

With the 20 game thing:
- for the ACC maybe, it maybe can maybe strengthen their SOS... except for the poor midpack team that adds 6-24 Boston College or 9-22 Wake to their schedule, in which case it hurts them... and except for the midpack team that adds a home game vs Duke, so adds a home loss and its 1.4-value to its RPI... and except for two midpack semi-bubble teams that will hand each other losses.

- for any conference that stays at 18, it allows them to keep 13 non-conference games... so, they can retain 2 non-conference games against solid opponents... more flexibility.

- the main reason the ACC is going to 20 games is because in 3 years they are supposed to get their own network, finally (5 to 10 years too late, and even though ESPN is their sugar daddy)... because ratings in New England on NESN for the Clemson vs NC State basketball games are so high (?)... whatever...

- the main reason the Big XII is looking to add 2 more teams is to guarantee a spot in the CFB playoff... so instead of just expanding the CFB to 6 teams, they will add 2 teams? Poor decision making, in my opinion.

Like I said- they haven't said they will move off of NYE, just they are considering it.

To your example with the 20 conference games. About the middle tier team who has to host Duke as one of the extra 2 conference games. A win there vs Duke probably would guarantee them a spot in the tournament. Also, a home loss against a top 10 team doesn't kill your RPI at all. It's the same thing for RPI quite frankly as beating a sub 300 team(which would be what's replaced). In a lot of ways, that's a no-risk thing. One thing we're probably going to start to see will be teams with more mediocre type of records making the tournament. Probably will start to see some 18-15 records making the tournament.

And the thing with the 20 conference games, it could EASILY have a huge impact on tournament selection. You say that staying 18 allows teams to retain 2 non-con games vs solid opponents. Those 2 games would likely still be on the schedule with 20 conference games. So while yes, that would be reacting to the other conferences, that is more of keeping up with the joneses.

[billyjack]

I really have no trouble with 20 games. My point I guess is that the ACC is going to 20 for more games to fill their network's timeslots. They're spinning it as a help to their teams' RPI's. If that's the reason, then why stop at 20 games? Pop it up to 22, 24, or 26 and play 9-7-5 solid games in OOC... then all their teams' RPI's will improve according to their argument.

[stever20]

I really have no trouble with 20 games. My point I guess is that the ACC is going to 20 for more games to fill their network's timeslots. They're spinning it as a help to their teams' RPI's. If that's the reason, then why stop at 20 games? Pop it up to 22, 24, or 26 and play 9-7-5 solid games in OOC... then all their teams' RPI's will improve according to their argument.

The thing is that going 20 gets back to having only 11 OOC games, which is how things used to be. Back 15 years ago you would play 16 conference games and 11 OOC games.

They really aren't adding more games total. if anything, the total number of possible games is reduced. But, they are taking 30 dreg games for the most part, and replacing with 15 games(most of which would be pretty good). I mean, you don't think Fox would like to have a Big East game instead of say Villanova/Lehigh?

[redmen9194]

The ACC is going to 20 games for one reason only - they are developing their own network and need inventory to fill the schedule. Most of the ACC coaches agree that it will not help get more teams in the tourney (Mike Brey excluded from that opinion) because the results of those additional games will be a wash with one team winning and one team losing. If you stayed at 18 and played those two non-conference, you have a shot of getting two wins against as good of a team as you want to schedule. We don't have to do a thing. The round robin is perfect. We have the right number of teams, are getting a sufficient number of bids on average, and have more National Championships in basketball since our realignment than every P% conference except the ACC which has the same number as we do. The Big East is fine - better than fine.

[stever20]

The ACC is going to 20 games for one reason only - they are developing their own network and need inventory to fill the schedule. Most of the ACC coaches agree that it will not help get more teams in the tourney (Mike Brey excluded from that opinion) because the results of those additional games will be a wash with one team winning and one team losing. If you stayed at 18 and played those two non-conference, you have a shot of getting two wins against as good of a team as you want to schedule. We don't have to do a thing. The round robin is perfect. We have the right number of teams, are getting a sufficient number of bids on average, and have more National Championships in basketball since our realignment than every P% conference except the ACC which has the same number as we do. The Big East is fine - better than fine.

That's fine- as long as the ACC is the only one who does it. If the other P5 conferences go to 20, that changes the equation considerably. I don't see how anyone could say it doesn't.

[DudeAnon]

Yea, 20 conference games shouldn't even be discussed unless all the other P5 conferences move to it. So far we have 1 conference doing it 3 years from now.

[NJRedman]

The NYE Marathon shifting due to the CFP is really the only time the Big East has adjusted based on outside factors... and like Redman said, the CFB is moving off NYE in the future anyway, and we can return to it. Generally, we've designed our conference and made decisions based on our own preferences.

And that should always be our goal. We're the innovators and smart decision makers. We decide, period, based on us. If some other conference makes changes, we're not in the business of running around with our hair on fire looking to copy them... especially when there is no logical reason have to go to 20 games. "Hey, look! Coach K and Roy Williams have decided to wear freakin stovepipe hats next season...! The Pac-12 is looking to do the same thing...! It's only a matter of time before all hoops coaches are wearing stovepipe hats... The Big East has got to change too, cuz this isn't the 80's anymore...!!!"

With the 20 game thing:
- for the ACC maybe, it maybe can maybe strengthen their SOS... except for the poor midpack team that adds 6-24 Boston College or 9-22 Wake to their schedule, in which case it hurts them... and except for the midpack team that adds a home game vs Duke, so adds a home loss and its 1.4-value to its RPI... and except for two midpack semi-bubble teams that will hand each other losses.

- for any conference that stays at 18, it allows them to keep 13 non-conference games... so, they can retain 2 non-conference games against solid opponents... more flexibility.

- the main reason the ACC is going to 20 games is because in 3 years they are supposed to get their own network, finally (5 to 10 years too late, and even though ESPN is their sugar daddy)... because ratings in New England on NESN for the Clemson vs NC State basketball games are so high (?)... whatever...

- the main reason the Big XII is looking to add 2 more teams is to guarantee a spot in the CFB playoff... so instead of just expanding the CFB to 6 teams, they will add 2 teams? Poor decision making, in my opinion.

Like I said- they haven't said they will move off of NYE, just they are considering it.

To your example with the 20 conference games. About the middle tier team who has to host Duke as one of the extra 2 conference games. A win there vs Duke probably would guarantee them a spot in the tournament. Also, a home loss against a top 10 team doesn't kill your RPI at all. It's the same thing for RPI quite frankly as beating a sub 300 team(which would be what's replaced). In a lot of ways, that's a no-risk thing. One thing we're probably going to start to see will be teams with more mediocre type of records making the tournament. Probably will start to see some 18-15 records making the tournament.

And the thing with the 20 conference games, it could EASILY have a huge impact on tournament selection. You say that staying 18 allows teams to retain 2 non-con games vs solid opponents. Those 2 games would likely still be on the schedule with 20 conference games. So while yes, that would be reacting to the other conferences, that is more of keeping up with the joneses.

The CFP did a 180 from "Never gonna move it" to "We're looking into it". That means they are moving. Their TV partners who are the ones writing the great big checks want it moved and the P5 still want those checks to be really really big so they will move it to when fans can actually watch it. If you think it;s not moving then I got a bridge to see ya.

You throw out a lot of "Coulds" and act like they are "wills".

[hortle]

stever do you think the big east is like three kids stacked up on top of each other inside a trench coat, trying to pass as a grown man, and all it will take to crumble the façade is one tiny shove? so what, val ackerman says, "welp, we're done boys. all the real power conferences went to 20 conference games, likely in an effort to show the basketball world how pathetic this little thought experiment of ours truly was. Its over, pack it in, get the fridges in the break room cleared out by tomorrow evening". do you live in some sort of risk-analysis nightmare world where you go about your day constantly thinking about worst case scenarios you could potentially be confronted with? Even if the % chance of the scenario occurring is so low that thinking about it is a waste of your mental capacities?

just wondering.

[stever20]

stever do you think the big east is like three kids stacked up on top of each other inside a trench coat, trying to pass as a grown man, and all it will take to crumble the façade is one tiny shove? so what, val ackerman says, "welp, we're done boys. all the real power conferences went to 20 conference games, likely in an effort to show the basketball world how pathetic this little thought experiment of ours truly was. Its over, pack it in, get the fridges in the break room cleared out by tomorrow evening". do you live in some sort of risk-analysis nightmare world where you go about your day constantly thinking about worst case scenarios you could potentially be confronted with? Even if the % chance of the scenario occurring is so low that thinking about it is a waste of your mental capacities?

just wondering.

Remember years ago conferences only played 16 conference games. Big East didn't start to play 18 games until the 2007-08 season. Things evolve.

I'm sorry, but if all the P5 conferences go to 20 games, that's going to impact the entire landscape of college basketball. Those conferences are still going to play the good OOC games along with exempt tournaments. So their SOS will improve quite a bit- along with the chances to get more good conference wins. And remember one of the main criteria on selection is OVERALL SOS.

Lets say this. It's FAR more likely that all P5 goes to 20 conference games than it is that the ACC is the lone wolf. I just think you(and others) are kidding yourselves if you really think that this has a very low% chance of occurring.

I think there's 2 questions....
1- Will all the other P5 go to 20 games.
2- if 1 happens, will the big east expand to keep up.

The answer to #2 IMO is pretty much 100% yes.. If all the P5 go to 20, the Big East will have no choice but to expand to keep up. To some, it may be unfortunate but it is what it is.
The entire question then becomes #1. Will all the P5 go to 20? I think it's at least 50/50.

And the thing is, the Big East wouldn't be looked at as doing it in a position of weakness. If anything, NOT doing anything would be looked as being in a position of weakness.

And I think it's absolutely comical that you think this is a worst case scenario. It actually would help the conference out IMO. 10 teams it gets too easy to have a year like 3 years ago with only 4 teams. Even last year- look at where Butler and PC were- #33 and #34. Only 9 teams behind them- in a year where 2 teams would have made the tourney were it not for probation. So really only 7 teams behind them in a normal year. That's 1 or 2 games for one of them to miss the tourney.