Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

121 - 140 of 1405 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
All fan bases are going to go "fanatic" over their own school/situation.
Leaving that aside, I've got to believe the BE would expand if it thought that it made more sense than the current alignment.

If they went to 12, Fox has the $ so that each team would still receive the same amount. It's not going to be any more national FS1 exposure for any team, because they'd move to an unbalanced format with no more than the 18 conference games they play now anyway.

The only reason would seem to be more $ from more teams in the dance; JP's hypothesis. But it doesn't really seem like 8 or 9 is reasonable anymore, absent a gigantic league like the old BE.

For the 10-14 league teams now, 7 seems to be the ceiling. Val may be stupid (I'm pretty sure she's not) but the BE got a really sweet TV deal with MSG thrown in. So it's really the NCAA teams each year that would be the only thing to argue for expansion. The argument against seems to be centered around liking the true round robin.

In the 2014 NCAA's (BE first year) the Big12 with 10 teams got 7 in, the A10 with 14 teams got 6 teams, and the BE only 4. No conference with big numbers got 7 teams; only the Big12.

In the 2015 NCAA's (BE second year) the Big12 and Big10 got 7 in, the BE got 6 teams, and the A10 got 3.

That's not a situation that lends itself to expansion at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,088 Posts
I'm not sure I understand the love for the round robin format. Personally, I liked the A10 better when it was a 12 team, divisional setup. For instance, depending on what happens over the next couple of games, the UD v Bona game in few weeks could be a battle for 1st in the "west division" and a top seed line. The game b/w Bona & Duquesne might be a battle for the 2 seed if Bona losses @ UD, or it might be a chance for Bona to lock up the 1 or 2 seed if they won at UD (depending on how UD fairs @ Rhody and St Joes). Just seems like there is more excitement added to more games when your competing in divisions.

From Marquette's perspective, I'm sure its great knowing that Nova and Georgetown (I guess) are going to show up every season, but does anyone get all that excited for Seton Hall or St John's? There has long been a hatred from Marquette (message board fans) towards UD; I have no idea why. We used to be rivals of sort, but that has been a long time. The last 2 images I have of Marquette vs UD involve DJ Stelly blocking Dewayne Wade's shot to seal off a win at UD and Chris Wright's nut sack scraping the head of some poor Marquette player's head as he soared over him for a dunk. In other words, I'm most indifferent about the school and program, I'm not sure why they would be any different.

I get why the double-round robin is good, and fun, and determines a champion fairly. If it was up to me, EVERY CONFERENCE would do exactly that. But that means we’d have 35 conferences of 10 teams each and no one could add an 11th team.

The simple fact is, the same rules that give the big boys freedom to expand for TV subscription fees and horde revenue enable us to set out regular season however we see fit. And because it does, it’s straight up STUPID to not use that to our advantage and set it up in a way that maximizes NCAA bids.

And what I don’t get about the Marquette fans, or the Xavier fans. Or the Seton Hall fans. Or the Butler and Creighton fans is that this formula is straight up PROVING to limit their NCAA bids.

I don’t know how they can be elitist and say Dayton can’t compete on our level, St. Bonaventure? We’d NEVER consider a program that bad. Saint Joseph’s? They’re not big time. George Washington? Georgetown’s little sister. Duquesne? Please.

And yet…
12. DAYTON
27. SAINT JOSEPH’S
36. ST. BONAVENTURE
38. Providence
50. GEORGE WASHINGTON
51. Seton Hall
54. DAVIDSON
76. Georgetown
85. Creighton
99. Marquette

Either our teams are worse, but our configuration/schedule is more efficient, or configuration/schedule is meaningless and we’re just better. It can’t be both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,088 Posts
I think you find Xavier fans and the majority of Big East fans against expansion because they don't want to give up quality games nearly every game they play.

Greg McDermott has said it over and over how great it is to be playing games with such magnitude and importance nearly every night out.

For example, Xavier doesn't get a 6 seed going 19-12 if the Big East isn't configured as it is. It just doesn't. Including the BE tournament, Xavier goes 21-13 and gets 9 Top 50 wins.
As my last post addressed, I totally get that “quality games every night” aspect. But at most, only HALF OF YOU can enjoy that. It’s killing the other half. How’s it working out for Seton Hall and Marquette?

You say “Xavier doesn't get a 6 seed going 19-12, if the Big East isn't configured as it is.” And that’s 100% true. But it’s also irrelevant, pointless and backwards. The only way a team as good as Xavier is losing 13 games a year is if they play a ridiculous schedule of 20 games against Top 100 teams!

The last time you were a 6-seed, you were 24-7! The Big East set-up is WHAT MADE Xavier LOSE 13 GAMES. And made Seton Hall LOSE 15 games.

2015 Xavier was 21-13 and 8-7 vs the Top 50, 11-9 vs the Top 100, 10-4 vs 101+
2011 Xavier was 24-7 and 4-3 vs the Top 50. 6-5 vs the Top 100, 18-2 vs 101+

Your RPI and +1 record vs Top 50 teams is what makes you a 6 seed. The only difference is your margin for error!
If you DON’T make it to 8-7 vs the Top 50 in the Big East and go 6-9, then you are 19-15 and probably screwed.
But if you’re 3-4 against the Top 50, you’d still be 23-8 and sitting pretty for a 7 seed.

And you’re the team it’s WORKING OUT FOR. Again, Seton Hall went 6-12 in the Big East playing 12 gams against Top 60 teams. Which brings me to:

You've got a conference where 80% of the teams are in the Top 100. 80%. 90% are in the Top 150. For comparison, the A-10 has 42% of its teams in the Top 100 and 64% in the Top 150. Nearly every time a BE team plays, they are playing a Top 100 team.
That is not a good thing.

The RPI is NOT an index of how good you are. It’s an index of your W-L vs your SOS.
Do you think Butler is better than St. Bonaventure? Of course.
Do you think Georgetown is better than George Washington? Of course.
Do you think Creighton is better than Duquesne? Of course.
But those A-10 teams have better RPIs than those Big East teams.

42% of the A-10 is in the TOP FIFTY TWO of the RPI. And it’s because they beat the crap out of the other 58%
60% of the Big East is in the 50 to 150 RPI range. And the only reason they’re not ALL in the Top 75 is because they beat the crap OUT OF EACH OTHER.

The Big East is too good for it’s own good.
The 10 Big East teams must go 90-90 against each other in conference play.
The Top 10 teams in the A-10 last year went 109-71 in conference play.

If the Big East had four teams at the bottom that were well below Big East caliber, the current members would play 13 games each against each other and go 65-65. Then in the OTHER 50 games, they could possibly go 50-0. That makes your 10th place Big East team 8-10 instead of 3-15. And still alive for an NCAA bid!


The only reason you don’t do that is because there aren’t four candidates of teams that WIN OUT OF CONFERENCE at a high enough clip, AND would be guaranteed to finish at the bottom of the Big East. Which is why I think St. Bonaventure is the perfect candidate for Big East expansion. How many of those types of candidate can you find?


The whole “The Big East is so deep top to bottom” thing is a fun topic for people to argue about on message boards. But at the end of the day, who cares? You know who talks about the bottom of the Atlantic 10 and Big East in March? No one. They’re only talking about the bubble and the dance. And having bad teams at the bottom losing puts more of your MIDDLE into that discussion.

In this talk about expansion - what players would actually push expansion? Fox doesn't care - unless a blue blood or true national program was added, adding 2 teams aren't going to affect the ratings.... and from everything I hear the coaches and AD's LOVE the set-up now.
I think it’s easy to fall into that trap of thinking “everything is fine because we’re sending 5 teams a year” and no one whines about the losses keeping them out of the dance because, well, they know they’re out of the dance because THEY LOST.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say “Seton Hall was 6-12 last year in the Big East and 16-15, of course we didn’t deserve an NCAA bid.”

And I think that because Villanova and Xavier are winning, and Creighton & Butler are stepping up from the MVC & Horizon, and because Seton Hall, Georgetown, Providence and St. John’s came from the old mega Big East; the only candidate to really say “hey, wait a minute” would be Marquette (who spent NINE SEASONS in the mega Big East) or Xavier if they were left out.

If Xavier had a season where they were 7-11 in the Big East, 17-14 overall and missed the NCAA Tournament and had a roster which was BETTER than their A-10 roster, and lose a few buzzer beaters at the wire, went to the NIT and watched Dayton go to the NCAA Round of 32 or NCAA Elite Eight again, THEN it might click and they might say “This team was no different than the teams that won the the Atlantic 10.”

Winning 40% of your games vs Big East caliber opponents makes you 7-11, and you better not lose three OOC games plus your BE Tourney opener (to the 2 or 3 seed!). That makes you 16-15 like 2015 Seton Hall.
Winning 40% of your games vs Big East caliber opponents in the A-10 makes you 12-6 at worst in the A-10, because there’s 10 other teams you can beat. Then you face the 12 seed in the A-10 first round. Same OOC as the Big East team? You’re 23-10, like 2015 Dayton.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,880 Posts
I totally understand what you're saying, JP, and I realize that type of invitation won't happen, but the Big East should shove that hypothetical/fictional invitation up its own ass. For the reasons you state above, the A10 is the perfect fit for SBU (as well as most schools here).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts
JP, you could practice hypnotherapy on me and I still would not be able to accept that the best way to improve a conference is to add bad teams. The statistical bump you might get would be negated by reputation etc. The ACC isnt the ACC if you replace Duke and UNC with UNC-Asheville and Lehigh.

I do think you're probably right about 10 being counter productive to more NCAA tourney bids. But it hasn't manifested itself yet. The year the Big East gets 3 bids the alarm bells will go off.

Also. I think if expansion happens, Dayton and VCU are the only real candidates.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,915 Posts
JP, you could practice hypnotherapy on me and I still would not be able to accept that the best way to improve a conference is to add bad teams. The statistical bump you might get would be negated by reputation etc. The ACC isnt the ACC if you replace Duke and UNC with UNC-Asheville and Lehigh.

I do think you're probably right about 10 being counter productive to more NCAA tourney bids. But it hasn't manifested itself yet. The year the Big East gets 3 bids the alarm bells will go off.

Also. I think if expansion happens, Dayton and VCU are the only real candidates.
Then they already have gone off. This happened in the first year. The BE will be a 4 bid league on average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
198 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
This conversation and JP is so far into the weeds he missed the big picture. There is no doubt the BE can eat their own. You also have the opportunity to play your way in much easier than the A10. Look at Xavier/Creighton as examples, they are getting better players due to the new league. Article in CBS this week Trevon Bluietts dad basically said there was no way he was going to Xavier in the A10. I would much rather lose more games and have more opportunities to get better talent and play your way in.

Take Butler and SH this year, both around .500 in league, if they beat a Xavier/Nova or a huge road win, that pushes them over easily. Drop a game to bottom half of a10, you're finished.

Last year Xavier was 9-9 in the BE regular season and got a 6 seed (finished 11-10 with tournament). 9-9 in the A10 doesnt get you into the NIT. 2 years ago they got into the play in game, you know what put them there? A loss to USC on a neutral court killed them.

The A10 is a solid league, and the formula UD uses is what Xavier used for years and had tremendous success. You can still get really good players and have tournament runs. However, Marq and Gtown are having bad years, yet the rosters are littered with 4 and 5 star players. Marq is inexperience and Gtown is poorly coached, but on any given night, talent can overcome that. In fact, had Marq not scheduled OOC so many 250 plus teams, they might be in better position. That doesn't happen to the mid or bottom tier A10. If you can get better players, who cares what your competition level is, you will win more games (you CAN get good players in the a10, look at UD/VCU).

Again rather be in a league where you can get better players top to bottom and more chances to play your way in but have more losses. Trying to beat the system but racking up more wins against lower level teams isn't a long term formula.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
As my last post addressed, I totally get that “quality games every night” aspect. But at most, only HALF OF YOU can enjoy that. It’s killing the other half. How’s it working out for Seton Hall and Marquette?

You say “Xavier doesn't get a 6 seed going 19-12, if the Big East isn't configured as it is.” And that’s 100% true. But it’s also irrelevant, pointless and backwards. The only way a team as good as Xavier is losing 13 games a year is if they play a ridiculous schedule of 20 games against Top 100 teams!

The last time you were a 6-seed, you were 24-7! The Big East set-up is WHAT MADE Xavier LOSE 13 GAMES. And made Seton Hall LOSE 15 games.

2015 Xavier was 21-13 and 8-7 vs the Top 50, 11-9 vs the Top 100, 10-4 vs 101+
2011 Xavier was 24-7 and 4-3 vs the Top 50. 6-5 vs the Top 100, 18-2 vs 101+

Your RPI and +1 record vs Top 50 teams is what makes you a 6 seed. The only difference is your margin for error!
If you DON’T make it to 8-7 vs the Top 50 in the Big East and go 6-9, then you are 19-15 and probably screwed.
But if you’re 3-4 against the Top 50, you’d still be 23-8 and sitting pretty for a 7 seed.

And you’re the team it’s WORKING OUT FOR. Again, Seton Hall went 6-12 in the Big East playing 12 gams against Top 60 teams. Which brings me to:



That is not a good thing.

The RPI is NOT an index of how good you are. It’s an index of your W-L vs your SOS.
Do you think Butler is better than St. Bonaventure? Of course.
Do you think Georgetown is better than George Washington? Of course.
Do you think Creighton is better than Duquesne? Of course.
But those A-10 teams have better RPIs than those Big East teams.

42% of the A-10 is in the TOP FIFTY TWO of the RPI. And it’s because they beat the crap out of the other 58%
60% of the Big East is in the 50 to 150 RPI range. And the only reason they’re not ALL in the Top 75 is because they beat the crap OUT OF EACH OTHER.

The Big East is too good for it’s own good.
The 10 Big East teams must go 90-90 against each other in conference play.
The Top 10 teams in the A-10 last year went 109-71 in conference play.

If the Big East had four teams at the bottom that were well below Big East caliber, the current members would play 13 games each against each other and go 65-65. Then in the OTHER 50 games, they could possibly go 50-0. That makes your 10th place Big East team 8-10 instead of 3-15. And still alive for an NCAA bid!


The only reason you don’t do that is because there aren’t four candidates of teams that WIN OUT OF CONFERENCE at a high enough clip, AND would be guaranteed to finish at the bottom of the Big East. Which is why I think St. Bonaventure is the perfect candidate for Big East expansion. How many of those types of candidate can you find?


The whole “The Big East is so deep top to bottom” thing is a fun topic for people to argue about on message boards. But at the end of the day, who cares? You know who talks about the bottom of the Atlantic 10 and Big East in March? No one. They’re only talking about the bubble and the dance. And having bad teams at the bottom losing puts more of your MIDDLE into that discussion.



I think it’s easy to fall into that trap of thinking “everything is fine because we’re sending 5 teams a year” and no one whines about the losses keeping them out of the dance because, well, they know they’re out of the dance because THEY LOST.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to say “Seton Hall was 6-12 last year in the Big East and 16-15, of course we didn’t deserve an NCAA bid.”

And I think that because Villanova and Xavier are winning, and Creighton & Butler are stepping up from the MVC & Horizon, and because Seton Hall, Georgetown, Providence and St. John’s came from the old mega Big East; the only candidate to really say “hey, wait a minute” would be Marquette (who spent NINE SEASONS in the mega Big East) or Xavier if they were left out.

If Xavier had a season where they were 7-11 in the Big East, 17-14 overall and missed the NCAA Tournament and had a roster which was BETTER than their A-10 roster, and lose a few buzzer beaters at the wire, went to the NIT and watched Dayton go to the NCAA Round of 32 or NCAA Elite Eight again, THEN it might click and they might say “This team was no different than the teams that won the the Atlantic 10.”

Winning 40% of your games vs Big East caliber opponents makes you 7-11, and you better not lose three OOC games plus your BE Tourney opener (to the 2 or 3 seed!). That makes you 16-15 like 2015 Seton Hall.
Winning 40% of your games vs Big East caliber opponents in the A-10 makes you 12-6 at worst in the A-10, because there’s 10 other teams you can beat. Then you face the 12 seed in the A-10 first round. Same OOC as the Big East team? You’re 23-10, like 2015 Dayton.

you're welcome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
The A10 is a solid league, and the formula UD uses is what Xavier used for years and had tremendous success. You can still get really good players and have tournament runs.
Therein lies part of the rub. Xavier contributed $32 million to the league from the tournament, but only got 6.52 back. The same thing is happening to Dayton right now.

Comparing the first 2 years of the realignment:

2014
6 A10 teams earned 10 units = $15 million/14 teams = $1,070,000/school
4 BE teams earned 6 units = $9 million/10 teams = $900,000/school

2015
3 A10 teams earned 5 units = $7.5 million/14 teams = $535,700/school
6 BE teams earned 11 units = $16.5 million/10 teams = $1,650,000/school

In 2 years, the A10 sent 9 teams and the BE 10.
A10 per school earned $1.6 million. BE per school earned $2.5 million.
That is not a recipe for change (at this time).

And almost 1/2 of the A10 units (7 of 15) were earned by Dayton.
The Spiders (who contributed jack sheet in those 2 years) are very grateful.

edit: hope my math is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,155 Posts
IIRC, the units w/n the A10 are not split evenly, the team that earns them gets a higher share of the units that they earn. There was a conversation on this a few years back if you dig thru the archives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,512 Posts
Therein lies part of the rub. Xavier contributed $32 million to the league from the tournament, but only got 6.52 back. The same thing is happening to Dayton right now.

Comparing the first 2 years of the realignment:

2014
6 A10 teams earned 10 units = $15 million/14 teams = $1,070,000/school
4 BE teams earned 6 units = $9 million/10 teams = $900,000/school

2015
3 A10 teams earned 5 units = $7.5 million/14 teams = $535,700/school
6 BE teams earned 11 units = $16.5 million/10 teams = $1,650,000/school

In 2 years, the A10 sent 9 teams and the BE 10.
A10 per school earned $1.6 million. BE per school earned $2.5 million.
That is not a recipe for change (at this time).

And almost 1/2 of the A10 units (7 of 15) were earned by Dayton.
The Spiders (who contributed jack sheet in those 2 years) are very grateful.

edit: hope my math is correct.
JP will check it for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,161 Posts
I thought so also. But then I ran the math off this article, and it is shown as if all teams share equally. Maybe their input isn't good though.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-march-madness-basketball-fund/
Pretty sure the A10 split is 75% for the winner, 25% for the rest of the conference. I think Butler sited this as one of the main reasons they moved to the A10, they were tired of splitting their NCAA winning with the rest of the horizon. I'll see if I can find a source.

Edit - here is an article that describes the split: http://richmondbizsense.com/2014/03/21/march-madness-math-can-get-fuzzy/

The Atlantic 10, the conference VCU plays in, has a different split. The league’s revenue sharing structure sets aside 25 percent of its basketball-related revenues to divide equally between all of its schools, regardless of performance. The remaining three-fourths are distributed to member teams based on their individual tournament performance, Cupps said.

“That’s pretty aggressive,” Cupps said of the 75-25 model, and the chance at a greater reward for individual tournament success was one reason VCU jumped from the Colonial Athletic Association to the Atlantic 10 two years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,525 Posts
Thanks. That's certainly very much at odds with the Bloomberg article, which had GMU in its first year in the conference getting 1/14th of the NCAA money earned.

Wish that article had some verification from other sources in the A10 structure who didn't comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Paul is doing a pretty good job of explaining why, at this time, the BE doesn't need to expand. If it's purely about money, since the NBE was formed, the A-10 is averaging $1.6 million per school and the NBE is averaging $2.5 million per school.

Also, I thought this was pretty good from Paul...
"For the 10-14 league teams now, 7 seems to be the ceiling. Val may be stupid (I'm pretty sure she's not) but the BE got a really sweet TV deal with MSG thrown in. So it's really the NCAA teams each year that would be the only thing to argue for expansion. The argument against seems to be centered around liking the true round robin.

In the 2014 NCAA's (BE first year) the Big12 with 10 teams got 7 in, the A10 with 14 teams got 6 teams, and the BE only 4. No conference with big numbers got 7 teams; only the Big12.

In the 2015 NCAA's (BE second year) the Big12 and Big10 got 7 in, the BE got 6 teams, and the A10 got 3.

That's not a situation that lends itself to expansion at this point."

So JP, you are advising that the Big East add 2 A-10 teams so they can get 6 teams in the tournament instead of 5, or 7 teams in the tournament instead of 6.

Why?

You seem concerned about the Seton Hall's of the world who currently are on the bubble playing all Top 100 teams. Why add TWO more teams that will compete with the Seton Hall's of the Big East, for maybe bumping up the bids from 5 to 6? In your scenario, the BE may get another bid, but it may be going to a non-BE school.

You seem to be the only one pushing this. FOX isn't gonna push it because why would they want to shell out another $8M/year for 2 more schools that won't move the needle on ratings.... and it's obvious the AD's and coaches are happy with the format.

And in terms of
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,464 Posts
On the SJU board we've been told, multiples of times, primarily by Nova fans that SHU would be "first or second" in the A10 this year. So if you believe that--which, given your BE fan status I'd think you might--then adding teams like Duquesne--firmly not in the top part of the A10 where SHU would be 'first or second'--would not "add TWO more teams that will compete with Seton Hall's of the Big East..."

Something doesn't jive here. Like Bill has stated elsewhere about the P5, the BE wants it every which way without any respect to the laws of physics. Or, in this case, reality.
 
121 - 140 of 1405 Posts
Top