Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1401 - 1405 of 1405 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,527 Posts
JP, I'm going to admit it's beyond me, and I probably need your visual aids.

But just on the basic deal, you were arguing for the BE to have more teams so they would have a couple teams on the bottom to suck up loses. And I showed you the ACC and A10, and how they DID have teams on the bottom to suck up loses...and the ratios of the records of both were the same.
Yet the ACC gets 7 teams in, and the A10 got 2.

So, to me at least, it's more important how you do OOC, and maybe you have to be riskier. It doesn't do the A10 any good to have teams on the bottom absorbing conference loses, when your conference and overall record (Dayton and Davidson) is that same as some ACC schools, and leaves you on the outside looking in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,882 Posts
JP, I'm going to admit it's beyond me, and I probably need your visual aids.

But just on the basic deal, you were arguing for the BE to have more teams so they would have a couple teams on the bottom to suck up loses. And I showed you the ACC and A10, and how they DID have teams on the bottom to suck up loses...and the ratios of the records of both were the same.
Yet the ACC gets 7 teams in, and the A10 got 2.

So, to me at least, it's more important how you do OOC, and maybe you have to be riskier. It doesn't do the A10 any good to have teams on the bottom absorbing conference loses, when your conference and overall record (Dayton and Davidson) is that same as some ACC schools, and leaves you on the outside looking in.
Well, paul, take a look at the ACC teams' OOC home-to-road ratio in comparison to the A10. Most of those schools play two road games. Some don't play any true road games. On top of that, look at the types of programs the ACC can afford to buy for one-offs. It's apples and oranges. They play more home games, win most of them (like most decent-to-good teams), compile 10+ wins, and then play each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,527 Posts
Well, paul, take a look at the ACC teams' OOC home-to-road ratio in comparison to the A10. Most of those schools play two road games. Some don't play any true road games. On top of that, look at the types of programs the ACC can afford to buy for one-offs. It's apples and oranges. They play more home games, win most of them (like most decent-to-good teams), compile 10+ wins, and then play each other.
Good point, which was why I looked at OOC SOS to get some idea, and W/L's within quadrants 1/2 OOC.

Edit: Dayton played one OOC road game last year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,091 Posts
JP, I'm going to admit it's beyond me, and I probably need your visual aids.

And I showed you the ACC and A10, and how they DID have teams on the bottom to suck up loses...and the ratios of the records of both were the same.

Yet the ACC gets 7 teams in, and the A10 got 2.

So, to me at least, it's more important how you do OOC
You're almost there. YES, how you do OOC is immensely important. It’s insanely important to conference effect because every conference is going .500 against itself, so how you all do OOC collectively as a conference is what separates Power Conferences from Non-Power conferences.

The ACC was 149-41 (.784) last year, and the A10 was 94-84 (.528). So the ACC gets 12 games against Q1, and the A10 gets 3 games against Q1.
The AAC gets their conference games worth like .620 on their SOS, the A-10 gets conference games worth like .510 on their SOS.

That’s why they get 7 bids and we got 2, despite conference standings being about the same.


I feel you’re viewing the “soaking up conference losses” part from an “Everyone’s the same” standpoint in terms of conference standings and — while that’s exactly true of conference STANDINGS, it’s not true of “who’s who on the NCAA At-Large board because of OOC play and what the does to NET/SOS/and the Q1 to Q4 breakdowns.


Generally, 10-team, 12-team, 14-team conferences act pretty consistently the same. Four teams finishing 7th at 7-11 is rare. Five teams finishing first at 12-6 is rare. If someone were to go through like 10 years of data on how a 10-team conference standings behave and take average records of each place (which I have!) they’d come to the conclusion that 10 teams is a bad number for the Big East based on the number of programs they have that COULD make the NCAAs in an unbalanced schedule (which I have been saying for years!).

That “Conferences perform the same IN CONFERENCE” was the basis on my whole “A-10 will be fine even though we’re losing Xavier, Temple, Butler and Charlotte” argument, while most outsiders thought we were screwed and headed toward San Juan Bid City. I knew that without Xavier, Dayton would be 2 games better. The big loss would be that Xavier and Butler tended to be awesome OOC record wise; but Temple and Charlotte did not, making it a wash for us.



The main part here is that: BECAUSE all the conferences act the same in conference play (as similar sized conferences), the records of team are not a true reflection of how good the teams actually ARE.

This is why I used the WCC as an example, because they are CONSISTENT and every knows the whole “If Gonzaga/Saint Mary’s was in a better conference, they wouldn’t be 30-3 or 28-6” argument.

Using the Big East, WCC* and a one-bid 10-team conference is the ideal example because they have the same configuration: 10 teams, BALANCED double-round robin schedule (* - the WCC abandoned that last year to keep Gonzaga, but for the previous five years those conferences were the same).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,091 Posts
So, to me at least, it's more important how you do OOC, and maybe you have to be riskier. It doesn't do the A10 any good to have teams on the bottom absorbing conference loses, when your conference and overall record (Dayton and Davidson) is that same as some ACC schools, and leaves you on the outside looking in.
You don't want to be riskier. We've had this convo a thousand times. Risk has a higher reward, but waaaaaay longer odds. The only time we were a one-bid league was when we did exactly that. It's why the A-10 replaced Linda Bruno.


The whole "It doesn't do the A10 any good to have teams on the bottom absorbing conference loses" thing is not wrong. It's not really helping us collectively. BUT

A. - I didn't say it was, I said the Big East needs it.
B. - It could help us if our middle was a lot better.

You're comparing the principle I'd advocate for the Big East as if the Top 10 of the Big East and A-10 are the same (They're not).

And that assumes the A-10 just formed with the decision to have those ratios (We didn't, we evolved over 30 years). The Big East actually did just form and DID choose those ratios. And I'm saying choosing those ratios wasn't the smartest of ideas.
 
1401 - 1405 of 1405 Posts
Top