Proposed A10 Thread for "Realists"

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by bprichard

But what has helped the perception of the A10 the most? Our top teams, Xavier and Temple (and hey, I'm going to throw Dayton in there because I don't get to do that often, but we have a stellar record against BCS conference teams) play BCS teams and punch them in the nose.

But yeah, our teams that don't have a good chance of winning those games should not be playing them.

Our reputation is really made by how we do in the tournament though. Most college basketball fans aren't as engaged as college football fans. Success really is measured in Sweet 16s and Final Fours. And I stand by what I said earlier about X. Their tough out of conference schedule makes them battle tested, fearless in conference play, and armed with the experience to play with anyone without being intimidated. Of course, it's key that Xavier also has the players to make this viable.

Dayton's OOC scheduling is great. Xavier gets it too. We're talking about everyone else.

Our reputation IS made by how we do in the tournament. More bids = more chances to get wins, better exposure and reputation to recruit with to get players that can do well in future tournaments.

Dayton went 12-1 OOC in 2008 beat #5 Louisville and DESTROYED #10 Pittsburgh. And were sent to the NIT.

If everyone in the BOTTOM half had simply played one BCS power team/two bad teams and gone 9-12 instead of playing 3.5 on average and going 2-19, the selection committee can keep RPI #26 Dayton out of the dance, now can they?

(Not suggesting people go without games against good teams to sell tickets/get some money/play intracity rivals like DUQ-Pitt, LAS-NOVA, etc. Did GW need to play UCLA? LaSalle play Fla St? LaSalle could have been 16-15 instead of 14-17, Duquesne 18-12 instead of 17-13, GW 11-15 instead of 9-17. Fordham 13-16 instead of 12-17. The Bonnies knew they'd be terrible in 2008, so they played zero BCS teams OOC that year (and went 6-7, instead of 3-10).

[bprichard]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

Dayton's OOC scheduling is great. Xavier gets it too. We're talking about everyone else.

Our reputation IS made by how we do in the tournament. More bids = more chances to get wins, better exposure and reputation to recruit with to get players that can do well in future tournaments.

Dayton went 12-1 OOC in 2008 beat #5 Louisville and DESTROYED #10 Pittsburgh. And were sent to the NIT.

If everyone in the BOTTOM half had simply played one BCS power team/two bad teams and gone 9-12 instead of playing 3.5 on average and going 2-19, the selection committee can keep RPI #26 Dayton out of the dance, now can they?

(Not suggesting people go without games against good teams to sell tickets/get some money/play intracity rivals like DUQ-Pitt, LAS-NOVA, etc. Did GW need to play UCLA? LaSalle play Fla St? LaSalle could have been 16-15 instead of 14-17, Duquesne 18-12 instead of 17-13, GW 11-15 instead of 9-17. Fordham 13-16 instead of 12-17. The Bonnies knew they'd be terrible in 2008, so they played zero BCS teams OOC that year (and went 6-7, instead of 3-10).

Dayton schedules okay. We need to stop scheduling teams that are likely to be under 150 in the RPI. There will always be surprises, but Dayton has made a habit of scheduling teams that are clearly awful, 1, 2, or 3 a year. It doesn't make our fans very happy and it is just not valuable.

[xavierhoops]

Originally Posted by jpschmack

Dayton's OOC scheduling is great. Xavier gets it too. We're talking about everyone else.

Xavier's scheduling philosophy is totally opposite yours. Xavier schedules one of the toughest OOC slates annually. That, if I understand your argument, is the exact opposite of what you're advocating.

I'm still not sure how you build OOC schedules adhering to any philosophy going by RPI or math formulas.

I gotta think when you're scheduling 2,3,4 and 5 years out, it's all based on perception, reputation and recent success.

Do you see, now, the qualitative aspect of college basketball? Part of it is the RPI's and number playing... but part of it still is the "name on the jersey" and perception

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

Marquee wins?? That's the point... they won't be considered marquee wins because of perception.

What makes a team a marquee win is their record/RPI. If you build the numbers, the perception changes.

Saint Louis was 106-106 over the previous seven seasons with Zero 20 win seasons and Zero NCAA tournament bids.
They went 11-2 OOC, didn't beat anyone in the top 70 OOC, and were a marquee win for anyone who beat them.

Look at three of the four teams who made the dance from the MWC last season:
The top four of the MWC had 19 top 50 wins.
They beat LBSU and Cal twice (neither of whom should have gotten at-large bids).
UNLV beat UNC (great win)
The other 14 Top 50 wins came against each other.

In 2006, the MVC top six teams had three Top 40 RPI wins OOC (only one vs a BCS team). And they had 22 Top 40 wins against each other. Four of them went to the NCAA Tournament.

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by xavierhoops

That, if I understand your argument, is the exact opposite of what you're advocating.

I'm still not sure how you build OOC schedules adhering to any philosophy going by RPI or math formulas.

I gotta think when you're scheduling 2,3,4 and 5 years out, it's all based on perception, reputation and recent success.

No, that isn't the opposite of what I'm advocating. I'm advocating: "Don't play games four that we all know you're going 0-4 in."

Xavier's schedule is fantastic. Why does Xavier play Memphis, Gonzaga, Vandy, Cincy and Purdue... because Xavier knows they can beat Memphis, Gonzaga, Vandy, Cincy and Purdue.


In 2008, my Bonnies were terrible. They knew they'd be terrible. They scheduled zero BCS teams OOC.
They went 6-8 against a weak schedule. That's a hell of a lot better than going 3-4 against weak teams and 0-7 against four BCS teams and three mid-major power.

The A-10 changed their OOC scheduling policy for the better when Linda Bruno left. The "Anyone, Any Where" policy is what led to this:

A-10 OOC SOS (NCAA BIDS)
2002: .5552 (1)
2012: .5141 (4)

There's no reason we couldn't do this:
2014: .5000 (6)

[blob]

I think some of the people in this thread are underestimating where the new A10 would rank in the grand scheme of things. Sure, VCU, St. Joe's, etc. may wish they were in a better league, but what are their options? The A10 will still be the 2nd best basketball only league East of the Rockies. There aren't any places to go for current members not invited to the BE that are more attractive.

Plus, that will make the conference an attractive option for upwardly mobile teams going forward. Teams will emerge as good candidates for addition. Were VCU or Butler attractive candidates 5 or 10 years ago? Teams will win in the Horizon, CAA, etc, and be looking to move up and the A10 will be the only real option to do so.

As far as the RPI argument, you can game the system a little bit, but for the most part, it does a decent job at what it is designed to do. You get credit for beating teams that have a lot of wins. Those teams are usually from major conferences, but also include the good teams from lesser conferences like Belmont, Davidson, Murray State, etc. If A10 teams can beat those teams, then they will be deserving of the higher RPIs that result. You aren't going to improve your RPI playing teams that finish with losing records in lesser conferences.

[jpschmack]

Oh, and you keep talking about 2-4 years out. What's Xavier's schedule for 2017?

I think Xavier might be different than the rest of us, because a hell of a lot more teams are willing to play you guys.

In general, it seems that teams may know a tournament they are going to, or a big opponent they signed a contract with that far out, but most contracts are two-year Home & Home contracts (or a H/A/N over three) or someone like Duq-Pitt, XU-UC might be longer term deals. But that's usually like 8 games in a given year out of 12. And most often, teams fit the same slot in the scheduling model (It's not like IPFW is becoming Gonzaga during the tenure of your contract with them).

Xavier & Bonaventure made Deadspin in March of 2010 because the hidden scheduling message board coaches/admins use to find games was discovered... and both schools were looking for 2010-11 games. Bona got mocked for pointing out how weak they were so NC State would play us in Rochester. Xavier was mentioned for cracking wise ("bi-curious mid-major seeks BCS team for home and home series")


Most scheduling stuff gets done at the previous year's Final Four convention.

[paulxu]

JP, not sure I understand your math stuff completely, and I still think the eyeball test is used for the last few bubble teams, but I think you are saying the teams in the bottom half of our conference need to have better OOC records, and that helps everybody.

So Dayton's great OOC record and #26 RPI didn't get them in because of the strength of the bottom half of the conference's OOC record? In combination with their own in-conference record...when a #26 should have been a shoo-in. But would that have made enough difference mathematically to push their RPI up any if the lower teams had played your suggested schedule?

But I'm also curious if any of the tougher BCS games that some of our conference teams play are in fact buy-in games for them, and they can use the cash?

[BrownIndians85]

Originally Posted by Muddy Waters

The Bonnies fans, individually and collectively, are showing a lot of insecurities these days.

I can't say I blame them.

What? In trying to figure out the best A-10 after the BE7 poaches X, Butler, and StL? I don't think there's any insecurity there, boy.

However, you keep cutting and pasting, trying to convince yourself that Dayton is getting an invite. ------- moron. You know, I don't usually call people idiots, because it generally isn't called for. And I won't call someone an idiot because I disagree with them, because that would just make me an idiot.

But you, MW, are a complete idiot.

[MANGHAM]

Originally Posted by BrownIndians85

What? In trying to figure out the best A-10 after the BE7 poaches X, Butler, and StL? I don't think there's any insecurity there, boy.

However, you keep cutting and pasting, trying to convince yourself that Dayton is getting an invite. ------- moron. You know, I don't usually call people idiots, because it generally isn't called for. And I won't call someone an idiot because I disagree with them, because that would just make me an idiot.

But you, MW, are a complete idiot.

Please, don't even go there. Most people have him on ignore to begin with. The penalty for us is that he stays on our board!

[Bill Russell]

The only way I see any of Muddy's posts are when people quote him, so please, for the sake of everyone who "ignores" him, refrain from quoting the man! As far as Bona fans showing "insecurities", I'm just not sure where that's been the case. Replying to some maniac's senseless rantings about one's alma mater doesn't make him insecure. As many have said, Bona fans understand their positioning in all of this and I don't think anyone is too upset with it. We're an A10 school through and through and will happily welcome new members if/when X, BU, and SLU depart.

[mateer]

A poster elsewhere mentioned cracks in the MVC due to football I believe. Why wouldn't a core of teams exit the A10 and partner up with a core of MVC? West Division, East Divison. This would probably help any of our west teams that get left out, if they do. Wichita State, Creighton, and a couple of others seem more interesting to me than Belmont and some of the other names bandied about.

Also, regarding the seven team loophole, is all seven have to play with all seven for seven years, or could it be three playing together seven years, and four playing together seven years. I wonder if the language is imprecise enough on this to argue against the intent of the rule for our benefit.

[jpschmack]

Originally Posted by paulxu

JP, not sure I understand your math stuff completely, and I still think the eyeball test is used for the last few bubble teams, but I think you are saying the teams in the bottom half of our conference need to have better OOC records, and that helps everybody.

Basically, yes. The top teams would still have their OOC chances for marquee wins.
The bottom teams would have fewer chances (but still SOME), but they'd have better records.
The SOS being better for EVERYONE makes our RPIs higher, and hopefully that makes our 4th and 5th place teams on the bubble have marquee wins against EACH OTHER, putting both of them in the NCAAs instead of both of them in the NIT.

Originally Posted by paulxu

So Dayton's great OOC record and #26 RPI didn't get them in because of the strength of the bottom half of the conference's OOC record? In combination with their own in-conference record...when a #26 should have been a shoo-in. But would that have made enough difference mathematically to push their RPI up any if the lower teams had played your suggested schedule?

Dayton's RPI wasn't #26. It was #32. The bottom half of the league ducking a few of their certain losses to good teams and instead beating a bad team (7 total games amongst five teams in 2008) would have moved Dayton's RPI from #32 to #26. That's how much difference OOC wins and losses have to your conference as a whole.

It's really this simple:

The bottom half the league plays, on average, four games against BCS teams a year. On average, they go about 2-26 in those games.

I'm saying the bottom half should play only 2 games against BCS teams a year. They'd probably go 1-13.
In the other 14 games, they should play bad teams and go 10-4 (or better).

Let's say the difference between a BCS record and a bad team is 7 games on their records. Their OOC SOS go down by 14 games.

But they'd be 11-17 in those games instead of 2-26. So their conference SOS goes up 9-12 games (some of them play each other twice). And their win percentage goes up. So their RPI goes up despite playing an easier schedule.

The top half of the league wouldn't change their OOC SOS at all. They'd ONLY get the gain of playing conference games against teams with 9 more wins (12-13 games, playing all 7 teams up to 10 times). So their SOS and RPI goes up by doing nothing differently.

Hopefully, that makes our 4th and 5th place team have RPIs high enough to get one or both into the NCAAs. If it moved our 4th place team to #49 in the RPI and 4th and 5th split games against each other, maybe they can BOTH get in.

Originally Posted by paulxu

But I'm also curious if any of the tougher BCS games that some of our conference teams play are in fact buy-in games for them, and they can use the cash?

That's really the biggest problem: Teams turning down money.
Of course, let's say they play ROAD GAMES at weak teams. They won't get paid, but they won't be buying the game either. The RPI rewards road wins, so it's good for their own RPI to play weak teams on the road.

If it gets us another NCAA bid a year, each school's share of NCAA money would go up a little. And going 16-14 instead of 14-16, now they might make the NIT/CBI/CIT.

[paulxu]

Txs.

[steve19981]

Originally Posted by blob

I think some of the people in this thread are underestimating where the new A10 would rank in the grand scheme of things. Sure, VCU, St. Joe's, etc. may wish they were in a better league, but what are their options? The A10 will still be the 2nd best basketball only league East of the Rockies. There aren't any places to go for current members not invited to the BE that are more attractive.

Plus, that will make the conference an attractive option for upwardly mobile teams going forward. Teams will emerge as good candidates for addition. Were VCU or Butler attractive candidates 5 or 10 years ago? Teams will win in the Horizon, CAA, etc, and be looking to move up and the A10 will be the only real option to do so.

As far as the RPI argument, you can game the system a little bit, but for the most part, it does a decent job at what it is designed to do. You get credit for beating teams that have a lot of wins. Those teams are usually from major conferences, but also include the good teams from lesser conferences like Belmont, Davidson, Murray State, etc. If A10 teams can beat those teams, then they will be deserving of the higher RPIs that result. You aren't going to improve your RPI playing teams that finish with losing records in lesser conferences.

This. You nailed it.